INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Science Disproves Evolution

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#21 Post by Dave B » April 26th, 2016, 2:45 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Ah, right, can't prove it so say lack of memory of past lives is "protective". So thst leaves it still as a belief with no substance to back it up.

If your beliefs make you happy and a person with the safety and quality of the lives of others important to you, well, strange as it may be my beliefs do the same for me! You seem to need a supernatural stimulus to express and practice this; my stimulus comes from my interpretation of my perception and experience of life. I do not feel the need to proselytise my belief, convince others to follow my dream, I merely practice it in some way every day. Should others follow my example? That is up to them, if they offer a smile to others because I gave them one, that's reward enough.

Go in peace, Pahu.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#22 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2016, 3:22 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
No one knows the precise length of time, but He has indicated the end is near (see Matthew 24). He is not happy that we sin and die. He is just giving us time to see the error of our ways.
What about 24:34? Or is the bible wrong?
Here is John Gill's exposition of that verse:

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass
Not the generation of men in general; as if the sense was, that mankind should not cease, until the accomplishment of these things; nor the generation, or people of the Jews, who should continue to be a people, until all were fulfilled; nor the generation of Christians; as if the meaning was, that there should be always a set of Christians, or believers in Christ in the world, until all these events came to pass; but it respects that present age, or generation of men then living in it; and the sense is, that all the men of that age should not die, but some should live till all these things were fulfilled;
So (and without going in to what the text in the original language actually says), you want us to discard the normal, everyday meaning of a word and supplant it with one that is essentially devoid of any specificity whatsoever that allows you to interpret Humpty-Dumpty fashion. Why is that and why should anyone accept that as being valid?
He has revealed it is.
In what way?
In the Bible.
No, you're misunderstanding again. I didn't ask in what book someone wrote it in, but in what way it was revealed.
As I said, no one has died yet (see above).
Do you agree that is a quite extraordinary claim?
Not when you understand the power of God and the fact of reincarnation as revealed in the Bible.
For someone who believes in magic, I suppose anything is believable, but what about those of us with both feet firmly planted in reality - do you accept that that is an extraordinary claim?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#23 Post by Alan H » April 26th, 2016, 3:26 pm

Pahu

As frequently happens with these kind of discussions, we keep jumping ahead without ever getting answers to earlier questions.

It would be really good if you could try to give cogent answers to these earlier questions I asked:

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 56#p188456

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 60#p188460

Thanks.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#24 Post by animist » April 26th, 2016, 11:13 pm

Pahu wrote:Where is that evidence? Here are some facts:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
it is not "a fact" that the universe simply came into being from nothing, therefore your argument is not valid

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#25 Post by animist » April 26th, 2016, 11:18 pm

Pahu wrote: That is what God has revealed. Is His Bible reliable? Here are some facts:

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
I have only checked out the second of these links. But have you actually read it yourself? It in fact debunks this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible. Could I just ask what your religion is? It appears from most of what you say to be Christianity, but you also seem to believe in the non-Christian doctrine of reincarnation

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#26 Post by Pahu » April 27th, 2016, 2:41 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:Where is that evidence? Here are some facts:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
it is not "a fact" that the universe simply came into being from nothing, therefore your argument is not valid
Do you deny that before the universe existed there was nothing?
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#27 Post by Pahu » April 27th, 2016, 2:48 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote: That is what God has revealed. Is His Bible reliable? Here are some facts:

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
I have only checked out the second of these links. But have you actually read it yourself? It in fact debunks this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
Yes, I have read it myself. Where does it debunk this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible?
Could I just ask what your religion is? It appears from most of what you say to be Christianity, but you also seem to believe in the non-Christian doctrine of reincarnation
Yes I am a Christian who accepts the fact of reincarnation that is found in and outside the Bible. The majority of Christians reject that fact, but that does not make it untrue.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#28 Post by Dave B » April 27th, 2016, 3:47 pm

The majority of Christians reject that fact, but that does not make it untrue.
Facts cannot be rejected by any rational person, and ignoring them is pretty dumb also. By "accepting" something one does not make it a fact, does not make it true.

A fact stands only by the evidence that proves it, which is why evolution is a theory - it has supporting evidence, that forms a coherent pattern (mostly) but no actual proof.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#29 Post by Pahu » April 27th, 2016, 4:45 pm

Moon Dust and Debris

If the Moon were billions of years old, it should have accumulated a thick layer of dust and debris from meteoritic bombardment. Before instruments were placed on the Moon, some scientists were very concerned that astronauts would sink into a sea of dust—possibly a mile in thickness (a). This did not happen. Very little meteoritic debris is on the Moon. In fact, after examining rocks and dust brought back from the Moon, scientists learned that only about 1/67 of the dust and debris came from outer space. Recent measurements of the influx rate of meteoritic material on the Moon also do not support an old Moon (b).  [For more details, see pages 577–579.]

a. Before instruments were sent to the Moon, Isaac Asimov made some interesting, but false, predictions. After estimating the great depths of dust that should be on the Moon, Asimov dramatically ended his article by stating:

I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight.Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,”Science Digest,
January 1959, p. 36.

Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays“could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.”Raymond A. Lyttleton,The Modern Universe(New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72.

Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London,Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]

Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman,It’s a Young World After All(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]

b.“Powdery particles resting on the moon’s surface could form a layer up to 1 millimeter thick every 1,000 years, according to a new analysis.” Meghan Rosen, “Moon Dust Gathers Surprisingly Fast,”
Science News,Vol 185, 11 January 2014, p. 6.

Extrapolating this rate of 1 millimeter per 1,000 years would produce a dust layer almost 3 miles thick in 4.5 billion years!

From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#30 Post by Dave B » April 27th, 2016, 5:16 pm

Pahu, seems most creationalists have dropped this argument as being unsustainable. See here.
The primary authority for Creation Ministries International is the infallible Word of God, the Bible (see Q&A Bible). All theories of science are fallible, and new data often overturn previously held theories. Evolutionists continually revise their theories because of new data, so it should not be surprising or distressing that some creationist scientific theories need to be revised too.
Which arguments should definitely not be used?
Moon-dust argument no longer useful
For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#31 Post by Alan H » April 27th, 2016, 6:19 pm

Pahu wrote:
Moon Dust and Debris
It would be very helpful if we could properly and fully discuss your first post and the questions it raised before introducing anything new, don't you think?

For example, these questions remain unanswered:

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 56#p188456

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 60#p188460
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#32 Post by Dave B » April 27th, 2016, 6:27 pm

Begining to think our friend is a member of the Pahuist sect of the Christian church.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#33 Post by animist » April 29th, 2016, 10:45 am

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:Where is that evidence? Here are some facts:

Before the universe existed there was nothing from which it appeared, which is impossible by any natural cause. Therefor the cause of the universe was supernatural, proving the existence of God.
it is not "a fact" that the universe simply came into being from nothing, therefore your argument is not valid
Do you deny that before the universe existed there was nothing?
no, more that we don't actually know whether the universe had a beginning. If there have been cycles of Big Bangs then the question of what came before the universe does not arise

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#34 Post by animist » April 29th, 2016, 10:46 am

Dave B wrote:Begining to think our friend is a member of the Pahuist sect of the Christian church.
+1

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#35 Post by animist » April 29th, 2016, 10:51 am

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:I have only checked out the second of these links. But have you actually read it yourself? It in fact debunks this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
Yes, I have read it myself. Where does it debunk this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible?
ok, here is the conclusion to this piece. If you read it again and fail to see that it denies the scientific accuracy of the Bible then I cannot really continue this conversation.

[edit] Conclusion


Science in the Bible
The idea of fideism is that faith is the most important thing of all, above evidence, above reason, above logic. It essentially states that you just have to believe, and ignore the evidence against you; these are just tests of faith, after all. However, for some, this faith is not enough, they need to prove it, and they want to prove it desperately. This is where things like this come in. Documentaries called "Proving The Bible True" or books like "Evidence Bible" play on the fears that people having their own faith in religion isn't strong enough. The result is that these people are then fed a pack of complete and utter lies and misrepresentations in order to back up their prejudices and pre-existing beliefs. The actual original meaning of "prove" is "to test", so if you want to go out and prove something, you need to be prepared to disprove it too. This is how science works, you test and you find out what is right and what is wrong - and then you test it again. Without this ability to say that you are wrong, or that your data was misleading, or that a new theory is better, science is nothing. And this is what we see here, with things like "Evidence Bible", they try to put it forward as scientific, but forget that the evidence can disprove their notions rather than back them up. Faced with this massive dilemma - accept the evidence and lose the beliefs, or keep the beliefs and just ignore the evidence as a test of faith - they take the option to misconstrue the evidence, lie, cheat and quote-mine their way out of an unwinnable situation.

This poster and card set titled "Science Confirms the Bible" is extremely simple and things like it are extremely common. Anyone with any specialty in the subjects mentioned can see the problems with it immediately, where the errors are, where the misrepresentations lie. Anyone with access to a Bible can also see the problems immediately, problems with translations or dubious interpretations. It's not difficult to debunk, but it is time consuming so why do it? The answer is simple: the key to the success of "Science Confirms the Bible" and similar efforts by fundamentalists is its simplicity. These things are given to school children who will take what they are given as fact and will understand it because of the ease of the language. This is a distortion, a caricature or parody of real science and these simple statements are outright wrong and devalue what science has actually given the world. Such things cannot go around completely unrefuted or even worse, merely laughed off as silly. The latter, especially, gets you nowhere; why just say that someone is wrong when you can prove it?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#36 Post by Pahu » April 29th, 2016, 2:36 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:it is not "a fact" that the universe simply came into being from nothing, therefore your argument is not valid
Do you deny that before the universe existed there was nothing?
no, more that we don't actually know whether the universe had a beginning. If there have been cycles of Big Bangs then the question of what came before the universe does not arise
If the universe had no beginning, then it is eternal, which violates science. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#37 Post by Pahu » April 29th, 2016, 3:13 pm

animist wrote:
Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:I have only checked out the second of these links. But have you actually read it yourself? It in fact debunks this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
Yes, I have read it myself. Where does it debunk this attempt to prove the scientific accuracy of the Bible?
ok, here is the conclusion to this piece. If you read it again and fail to see that it denies the scientific accuracy of the Bible then I cannot really continue this conversation.

[edit] Conclusion


Science in the Bible
The idea of fideism is that faith is the most important thing of all, above evidence, above reason, above logic. It essentially states that you just have to believe, and ignore the evidence against you; these are just tests of faith, after all. However, for some, this faith is not enough, they need to prove it, and they want to prove it desperately. This is where things like this come in. Documentaries called "Proving The Bible True" or books like "Evidence Bible" play on the fears that people having their own faith in religion isn't strong enough. The result is that these people are then fed a pack of complete and utter lies and misrepresentations in order to back up their prejudices and pre-existing beliefs. The actual original meaning of "prove" is "to test", so if you want to go out and prove something, you need to be prepared to disprove it too. This is how science works, you test and you find out what is right and what is wrong - and then you test it again. Without this ability to say that you are wrong, or that your data was misleading, or that a new theory is better, science is nothing. And this is what we see here, with things like "Evidence Bible", they try to put it forward as scientific, but forget that the evidence can disprove their notions rather than back them up. Faced with this massive dilemma - accept the evidence and lose the beliefs, or keep the beliefs and just ignore the evidence as a test of faith - they take the option to misconstrue the evidence, lie, cheat and quote-mine their way out of an unwinnable situation.

This poster and card set titled "Science Confirms the Bible" is extremely simple and things like it are extremely common. Anyone with any specialty in the subjects mentioned can see the problems with it immediately, where the errors are, where the misrepresentations lie. Anyone with access to a Bible can also see the problems immediately, problems with translations or dubious interpretations. It's not difficult to debunk, but it is time consuming so why do it? The answer is simple: the key to the success of "Science Confirms the Bible" and similar efforts by fundamentalists is its simplicity. These things are given to school children who will take what they are given as fact and will understand it because of the ease of the language. This is a distortion, a caricature or parody of real science and these simple statements are outright wrong and devalue what science has actually given the world. Such things cannot go around completely unrefuted or even worse, merely laughed off as silly. The latter, especially, gets you nowhere; why just say that someone is wrong when you can prove it?
After reviewing the link I will have to admit it was put together by someone intent on trying to discredit the Bible. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I notice that even though he attempts to debunk Bible science, he fails by including imaginary information and conclusions, which are contrary to the Bible and science.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#38 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2016, 3:23 pm

Pahu wrote:I notice that even though he attempts to debunk Bible science, he fails by including imaginary information and conclusions, which are contrary to the Bible and science.
Seriously?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#39 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2016, 3:24 pm

Pahu wrote:If the universe had no beginning, then it is eternal, which violates science.
What does that mean?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 387
Joined: April 25th, 2016, 4:03 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#40 Post by Pahu » April 29th, 2016, 6:52 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:If the universe had no beginning, then it is eternal, which violates science.
What does that mean?
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
Truth frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#41 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2016, 6:59 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:If the universe had no beginning, then it is eternal, which violates science.
What does that mean?
The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and before that beginning there was nothing. Something cannot come from nothing by any natural cause but since evolutionism is a philosophy of materialism, it has to claim the universe came from nothing by some natural cause, which contradicts the facts of science.

Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that has always existed. That uncaused cause is God.
That's mostly fallacious appeals to personal incredulity but that wasn't what I was asking you. You said "violates science". I wondered what you thought that meant.

But I hope you haven't forgotten these?

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 56#p188456

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 60#p188460

It really would help if you could go back and focus on the basic questions before getting embroiled in further minutiae.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply