Dissent from Darwinism

[NYFelon]

ummm there has to be a first human, how'd that happen?

Do you mean hominid life in general, or homo sapiens specifically?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Also worth pointing out is that the Big Bang is the base foundation for a self-creating universe excluding God. Exactly how does this pass the test of the Scientific Method? It is equally as religious as creation.

Because in the general sense the big bang theory attempts to explains how the universe came to the point where it is now, and does not address how the very first particles were created. Most theories modeled after the big bang theory are in regard to the expansion of space, and not original creation. Once a leap is made that the big bang theory actually created the first particle, the scientific method can no longer be applied - at least without radically changing what we consider natural law.

Since the big bang theory deals with the laws of physics, and objectively measurable things - the scientific method can be applied.

Since these things are technically observable, it falls into the realm of science. Once you cross over into theories of phenomenon technically unobservable by humans, you are no longer in the realm of science.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

ummm there has to be a first human, how'd that happen?

Like NYfelon already noted... if you mean specifically our species, evolutionary theory would yield one scientific possibility - but as far as a more general sense of the question I think you were philosophically asking..."if everything comes from something in our natural world, what created the first something".... Science has never found an observable means to address that question, and does not claim to.

In the same sense, theology does not address that question either... if the big bang theory created our universe, what created the big bang? If God created our universe, what created God? The subjective answer is always "it already was".

 

[Bummer]

... There is even a creation museum not too far from here just over the ohio border.

You mean the guys who think that The Flintstones is a documentary? That black hole of ignorance is in Kentucky. Seriously, I can't believe you offered the Creation Museum as a reference.

Let me give you a tip: Shibumi is offering you knowledge. You're brushing it aside and attempting to correct him. The sad fact is that both you and DustinG have been completely pwned and neither of you seem to know it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

This is a great point. We cannot observe evolution; we can only observe fossils. Macro evolution has never been observed by man; so to believe in it requires faith.

While we cannot currently observe macro evolution, we can observe other phenomenon in our natural environment that lead us to assume if it is a correct or incorrect theory. The contrasting difference is that since worldly things are plausible to measure as humans, if we gather all the knowledge required we could observe them to a degree as close to perfect as humans are capable. Macro evolution is inherently possible to prove or disprove... lacking the knowledge or understanding to do so does not make it impossible.

If we learned everything science can yield us about our world, it would be possible to observe if macro evolution is correct or incorrect.

It is not plausible in our natural world to observe things outside the scope of our natural world. Since those things can never be measured, we cannot craft experiments to prove or disprove them... and without the ability to apply the scientific method, those things can never be considered science.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Well.......I personally believe without a doubt, that evolution occurs. I also happen to believe in God and am ultra conservative. No matter how far back in time one can peer, there always seems to be a beginning or at least a need for one to exist. Now I ask you this, what was there before the beginning? There must have been something right? I mean how did the beginning even happen if there was nothing right? If there was something earlier then the "beginning" concept falls apart while if there was truly nothing then there must have been a force of some sort to "create" stuff. God and science really can and do exist together. Faith is key, don't lose it.

 

[bigg cheese]

Gunner:

Scientists observe what are ASSUMED to be facts/effects from the big bang. If you have a secret observer who saw it, please say so. there are more holes in what we "should" see as a result of a supposed big bang of uknown size, cause, and origin, than the world's biggest cheese grater.

Throttle:

Oh, I have my faith. I have faith that since the Bible speaks of and references Creation throughout scripture, old and new testament, it is not false. When one says that God did not do what was explicitly stated, the authority of scripture is compromised in the same way that the Supreme Court has simply twisted the Constitution to mean whatever then need at the time.

The difference is determined when you decide what Truth is. Truth does not change. Facts do. First, we were only a few million years old, and now we're up into the tens of billions.

 

[DustinG]

You mean the guys who think that The Flintstones is a documentary? That black hole of ignorance is in Kentucky. Seriously, I can't believe you offered the Creation Museum as a reference.

Let me give you a tip: Shibumi is offering you knowledge. You're brushing it aside and attempting to correct him. The sad fact is that both you and DustinG have been completely pwned and neither of you seem to know it.

I am open to science proving it either way. When there is over 10,000 scientists saying the theory does not fit the evidence, then not all scientists are on board. Where does this knowledge come from that is being offered? If if it is from college, then it is from the same closed minded individuals who ram evolution down people's throats as a fact. Has Shibumi been back in time over 10,000 years ago to measure these isotopes or is he taking what was taught to him on faith?

I'm sorry that I do not take everything that is taught to me as a fact and I must follow it as a sheep because some brilliant scientist made a theory a decade and a half ago. Then the other scientists followed the theory and made the evidence fit the theory or altered the theory slightly to fit the evidence (never disposing of the theory in whole to look at the evidence objectively). Now there is considerable doubt AMONG SCIENTISTS that the theory could even be altered to fit the evidence. I'm not saying these scientists are right, but I'm not saying the others are either.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Gunner:
Scientists observe what are ASSUMED to be facts/effects from the big bang. If you have a secret observer who saw it, please say so. there are more holes in what we "should" see as a result of a supposed big bang of uknown size, cause, and origin, than the world's biggest cheese grater.

The difference is not about the theories being believed or implied assumptions, the difference is the ability for the scientific method to be applied. Since it is plausible by observing our natural environment and application of the scientific method to discover unknowns in physics that disprove the theoretical expansions of the universe inherent in the big bang theory - empirical evidence could plausibly disprove the big bang theory. Further investigation into the theory can also lead to other breakthroughs in physics that help explain other phenomenon in our world, advancing our understanding of our universe. Information and knowledge gained could disprove the big bang theory, but it would still be a scientific theory (albeit considered incorrect) - because scientific experimentation can be performed to prove/disprove its merits.

Since creationism deals inherently with a supernatural force outside the scope of our natural observable environment, and no experiment or empirical evidence exists in nature that could plausibly prove or disprove it - it will always be outside the scope of science.

The contrast is not assumption, people believing, or a theory being correct - the contrast is the ability to plausibly prove or disprove something through scientific experimentation.

Faith is great, and I would never try to tell someone not to have spiritual faith... but a distinct contrast exists between aspects of theology and hard sciences.

 

[DustinG]

This is a good resource for those still on the fence about the fossil record.

And why would this not be a good source for those people who are on the fence about the fossil record? If they have been on the fence after looking at the evidence and the theory from one side and don't know if they believe, why should they not look at the other side to see what it has to say?

So you are telling me that if you have grown up all your life being told by (the public school system and college (liberals) that guns are bad and that they kill people, you should not look at an argument from the other side. If you doubt that guns are bad and that guns kill people, then you should just listen to the college professors some more until it is pounded into your head enough so that you can believe it. Instead of reading an article from the NRA to get both sides?

 

[squirrelhntr]

"The fool hath said in his heart. There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1. Ain't that the truth

 

[jpo117]

The list posted on the first page has over ten thousand scientists that are petitioning to reconsider evolution because they do not believe it is a good theory.

Check your math. The list posted on the first page has less than 900 scientists. Nowhere close to the 10,000 you claim, and only a tiny fraction of the million or so biologists employed in the United States alone.

Also, many of the individuals listed are meteorologists, computer engineers, or philosophy professors, not biologists, chemists, or paleontologists. On just one page (the only page I counted) I saw 16 out of 45 individuals listed without credentials in the life sciences.

Sounds to me like that list isn't very impressive.

 

[bigg cheese]

You mean the guys who think that The Flintstones is a documentary? That black hole of ignorance is in Kentucky. Seriously, I can't believe you offered the Creation Museum as a reference.

Let me give you a tip: Shibumi is offering you knowledge. You're brushing it aside and attempting to correct him. The sad fact is that both you and DustinG have been completely pwned and neither of you seem to know it.

1. I am pleased to see you're reading even if not participating.

2. Just for the record, it is evolutionists who believe in prehistoric cavemen. Insulting me with what evolutionists believe doesn't really have the desired effect, I wager .

That said, I look forward to any thoughts you have.

 

[NYFelon]

"The fool hath said in his heart. There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1. Ain't that the truth

So you're saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is inherently evil? That's a mighty wide swipe with an enormous brush, don't you think?

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[Bummer]

1. I am pleased to see you're reading even if not participating.

I knew you weren't really paying attention.

2. Just for the record, it is evolutionists who believe in prehistoric cavemen. Insulting me with what evolutionists believe doesn't really have the desired effect, I wager .

Just for the record "evolutionist" is a term used primarily by the superstitious in an attempt to lower Science to their level. See the "ist"?

Yes, most "evolutionists" accept the huge amount of evidence for prehistoric humans living in caves. They also accept the huge amount of evidence that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs. Turns out prehistoric just means "before we started writing stuff down", not "when the dinosaurs roamed".

The Evolution Museum, which you suggested as a source, has a diorama with humans and dinosaurs living together. And they're serious! They simply can not accept that a twisted interpretation of a series of stories handed down word of mouth for generations might not be literally accurate.

That said, I look forward to any thoughts you have.

Any thoughts I have? I'm way past accepting the evidence for evolution. Flu vaccines usually work. I'm good. Now, do you think they'll find the Higgs Boson between 114 and 140 gev or will an explanation of mass require another hypothesis altogether?

 

[NYFelon]

why you gotta bring particle physics and subatomic energy levels into it?

you're harshing my mellow

 

[Bummer]

...

I'm sorry that I do not take everything that is taught to me as a fact

Theories are not facts. They are supported by facts. They explain the facts. They are not, themselves, facts.

and I must follow it as a sheep

No, but if someone says it on Sunday morning you're in line bleating away.

because some brilliant scientist made a theory a decade and a half ago.

Darwin lived a century and a half ago. During that time his theory has been expanded upon, never actually falsified. If you think you have something why not publish? There's a million dollar check waiting on you.

or altered the theory slightly to fit the evidence

Theories get altered to fit the evidence all the time. That's pretty much the point.

(never disposing of the theory in whole to look at the evidence objectively).

Why dispose of the whole theory? Why not just change it to fit the facts?

And where's the objective evidence for Creation or Intelligent Design? By the way, I'm still waiting on either theory if you have 'em.

The rest has been well addressed by jpo117.

 

[Bummer]

why you gotta bring particle physics and subatomic energy levels into it?

you're harshing my mellow

Sorry. Couldn't help myself. He did ask...

 

[bigg cheese]

I knew you weren't really paying attention.



Just for the record "evolutionist" is a term used primarily by the superstitious in an attempt to lower Science to their level. See the "ist"?

Yes, most "evolutionists" accept the huge amount of evidence for prehistoric humans living in caves. They also accept the huge amount of evidence that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs. Turns out prehistoric just means "before we started writing stuff down", not "when the dinosaurs roamed".

The Evolution Museum, which you suggested as a source, has a diorama with humans and dinosaurs living together. And they're serious! They simply can not accept that a twisted interpretation of a series of stories handed down word of mouth for generations might not be literally accurate.



Any thoughts I have? I'm way past accepting the evidence for evolution. Flu vaccines usually work. I'm good. Now, do you think they'll find the Higgs Boson between 114 and 140 gev or will an explanation of mass require another hypothesis altogether?

Just one thing -- There are cave drawings of dinosaurs. Not skeleton drawings, but depictions of actual dinosaurs, crude as they are. And of course, archeology has only been going on for a few hundred years, so they didn't have access to computer modeling, fossils, or anything.



Messages on Stone - Answers in Genesis