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
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

Latest post of the previous page:

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?

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#42 Post by Pahu » April 29th, 2016, 7:11 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote: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.
Violating the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
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

#43 Post by Alan H » April 29th, 2016, 7:24 pm

Pahu wrote:Violating the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Looks like you've just copy and pasted - and shoe-horned - a definition of the word 'science' taken from the the Oxford Dictionary of English into your two-word phrase - or perhaps you got it from this Conservapedia page? Somehow, I suspect that fits.

Anyway, now you've done that, can you actually explain what you meant when you said 'violates science'?
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

#44 Post by animist » May 1st, 2016, 1:53 pm

Pahu wrote:Some people do remember their pasts lives. In the book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Ian Stevenson, his team of scientists interviewed twenty children who remembered their past lives. Their accounts were checked as to past life relatives, places, events, etc. and were found to be accurate. Here are some details:

From Reincarnation in the Bible? http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reincar ... 1491811009
hi Pahu, that is interesting, but the link you quote is just a publisher blurb, so I have to ask whether you have actually read this book; if you have, please give us a taster of it. Orthodox Xians of all stripes reject reincarnation, since their faith centres on a man who died by crucifixion and was then resurrected as God; he did not reincarnate as another person, or FTM an animal, and Xians believe that God created all of us as an immortal soul which goes to Heaven or Hell after death. As for the Stevenson book, I think this is indeed an interesting set of studies of claimed reincarnation cases, all of them in India (a nation whose religion centres on reincarnation); even if they "proved" reincarnation (which I doubt they do), it would not advance your Hindu-Xian synthesis faith

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#45 Post by Pahu » May 1st, 2016, 8:21 pm

Pahu wrote:Some people do remember their pasts lives. In the book, Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Ian Stevenson, his team of scientists interviewed twenty children who remembered their past lives. Their accounts were checked as to past life relatives, places, events, etc. and were found to be accurate. Here are some details:

From Reincarnation in the Bible? http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/reincar ... 1491811009
animist wrote:hi Pahu, that is interesting, but the link you quote is just a publisher blurb, so I have to ask whether you have actually read this book; if you have, please give us a taster of it.
I did provide a taste of it and yes, I have read it. You can read the book online here: https://books.google.com/books?id=XcHCA ... 52&f=false
Orthodox Xians of all stripes reject reincarnation, since their faith centres on a man who died by crucifixion and was then resurrected as God; he did not reincarnate as another person, or FTM an animal...
It is true most Christians reject reincarnation despite the evidence for it in and out of the Bible.
...and Xians believe that God created all of us as an immortal soul which goes to Heaven or Hell after death.
Most Christians believe that even though it conflicts with what the Bible teaches.
As for the Stevenson book, I think this is indeed an interesting set of studies of claimed reincarnation cases, all of them in India (a nation whose religion centres on reincarnation); even if they "proved" reincarnation (which I doubt they do), it would not advance your Hindu-Xian synthesis faith
Most of the children studied are from India but there are other cases in other countries.
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

#46 Post by Pahu » May 4th, 2016, 3:32 pm

Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated.  Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans.  Therefore, Earth appears to be young.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
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

#47 Post by Alan H » May 4th, 2016, 4:31 pm

Pahu wrote:
Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated.  Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans.  Therefore, Earth appears to be young.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
LOL!

But you digress yet again... what about dealing fully and properly with the first issue you brought up then we can maybe move on to other areas of discussion?
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

#48 Post by Pahu » May 4th, 2016, 9:33 pm

delete
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

#49 Post by Pahu » May 4th, 2016, 9:37 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Meteoritic Dust
Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated.  Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans.  Therefore, Earth appears to be young.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
LOL!

But you digress yet again... what about dealing fully and properly with the first issue you brought up then we can maybe move on to other areas of discussion?
What have I lacked that did not deal fully and properly with the first issue I brought up?
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

#50 Post by Dave B » May 4th, 2016, 9:40 pm

Pahu wrote:delete
Your best post yet, Pahu!


Religion is a fact and evidence free delusion worshipping an impotent supernatural entity.
"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

#51 Post by Alan H » May 4th, 2016, 11:35 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:But you digress yet again... what about dealing fully and properly with the first issue you brought up then we can maybe move on to other areas of discussion?
What have I lacked that did not deal fully and properly with the first issue I brought up?
I've mentioned twice now the two questions (but there may be others) about the consequence of sin that you haven't answered - I think it would help if you could answer these before moving on any further:

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#52 Post by Pahu » May 5th, 2016, 2:02 pm

Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:But you digress yet again... what about dealing fully and properly with the first issue you brought up then we can maybe move on to other areas of discussion?
What have I lacked that did not deal fully and properly with the first issue I brought up?
I've mentioned twice now the two questions (but there may be others) about the consequence of sin that you haven't answered - I think it would help if you could answer these before moving on any further:

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

Precipitation is the consequence of the build up of moisture in the air; how is disease and death the consequence of sin?
God has revealed sin is transgressing His Law. God has revealed the consequence of sin is disease and death.
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 60#p188460

Another question for you: why aren't smiles and chocolate biscuits the consequence of sin?
It is silly questions like this that leads me to believe you are not really interested in rational dialogue, which is why I choose to ignore you.
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

#53 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2016, 3:40 pm

Pahu wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Pahu wrote:
What have I lacked that did not deal fully and properly with the first issue I brought up?
I've mentioned twice now the two questions (but there may be others) about the consequence of sin that you haven't answered - I think it would help if you could answer these before moving on any further:

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

Precipitation is the consequence of the build up of moisture in the air; how is disease and death the consequence of sin?
God has revealed sin is transgressing His Law. God has revealed the consequence of sin is disease and death.
No. You have not answered the question I was asking but some other one I didn't ask.
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/vie ... 60#p188460

Another question for you: why aren't smiles and chocolate biscuits the consequence of sin?
It is silly questions like this that leads me to believe you are not really interested in rational dialogue, which is why I choose to ignore you.
No, it's a question designed to try to understand how you consider your reasoning works. So far, it's not at all clear even you understand it.
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

#54 Post by Dave B » May 5th, 2016, 4:30 pm

Pahu, you are preaching, prosetylising, evangelising or whatever in the wrong place. This is a Humanist forum where we are happy to debate .

Dunno about the others but, for me, debate means putting up a subject, idea or proposition that the other can read, consider and respond to. And then the process repeats until agreement or stalemate (hopefully friendly) is reached.

Now, if the proposition is that your god's word, as written in your bible, is the mode in shich we xhould run our lives . . . you are going to have to offer further, non-repetitive, non-cicular, evidence or proof, that this is so.

So far, despite being asked, you do not even come close to this.

In "our house" you abide by our rules.
"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

#55 Post by Pahu » May 5th, 2016, 6:23 pm

Dave B wrote:Pahu, you are preaching, prosetylising, evangelising or whatever in the wrong place. This is a Humanist forum where we are happy to debate .

Dunno about the others but, for me, debate means putting up a subject, idea or proposition that the other can read, consider and respond to. And then the process repeats until agreement or stalemate (hopefully friendly) is reached.

Now, if the proposition is that your god's word, as written in your bible, is the mode in shich we xhould run our lives . . . you are going to have to offer further, non-repetitive, non-cicular, evidence or proof, that this is so.

So far, despite being asked, you do not even come close to this.

In "our house" you abide by our rules.
I thought I had given you proof of God's existence and proof that He is the author of the Bible.

Here is proof God exists:

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. For details go here:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Here is proof God is the author of the Bible: The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

Here is evidence the Bible is accurate:

Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

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

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
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

#56 Post by Alan H » May 5th, 2016, 6:27 pm

Pahu wrote:I thought I had given you proof of God's existence and proof that He is the author of the Bible.

Here is proof God exists:...
No, that is not proof. It's supposition at best and refuted nonsense at worst.
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

#57 Post by Dave B » May 5th, 2016, 7:40 pm

So, Pahu, if the supernatural proves tge existence of god sure it must also prove the existence of fairies, elves, goblins, hobgoblins, centaurs, Cyclops, magic (black and white) etc etc.

All these have as much proof of existence, your god is just a rather popular one since about 250 BCE, or maybe a bit earlier, when someone wrote all the folk stories, legends etc down and tried to rationalise the rest. Some good psychology and the odd bit of common sense, that still applies, when you filter out the rest.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#58 Post by Dave B » May 5th, 2016, 8:17 pm

Pahu, since you like links here are a few for you to read - if you dare:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancie ... mbryos.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13278255
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... pular.html

There are lots more but reiterations and repeats become boring.

However, with a nod to science one must a a little sceptical. There is the problem if homology versus homoplasy (you are OK, nothing to do with homosexuality), similarity may not mean a common origin, but two totally separate species may find solutions that look similar due to similar environmental influences.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/phyl ... plasy.html

There may be one or more reasons why we have similar body structure to hundreds of other species, why the octopus' eye looks so like ours - but is differently constructed,, why birds have similar otoliths to dinosaurs etc etc.

We are willing to be sceptical, science is not written on tablets of stone yer know! But this stuff is based on measurable evidence, not what Tom, Dick or Harry think is the answer to and age old question. A theory may not be a concrete fact but it is constructed on firm footings and will hold up until new evidence weakens it.

There is no evidence for the supernatural outside the mind of humans.
"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

#59 Post by animist » May 5th, 2016, 10:15 pm

Pahu wrote:
Dave B wrote:Pahu, you are preaching, prosetylising, evangelising or whatever in the wrong place. This is a Humanist forum where we are happy to debate .

Dunno about the others but, for me, debate means putting up a subject, idea or proposition that the other can read, consider and respond to. And then the process repeats until agreement or stalemate (hopefully friendly) is reached.

Now, if the proposition is that your god's word, as written in your bible, is the mode in shich we xhould run our lives . . . you are going to have to offer further, non-repetitive, non-cicular, evidence or proof, that this is so.

So far, despite being asked, you do not even come close to this.

In "our house" you abide by our rules.
I thought I had given you proof of God's existence and proof that He is the author of the Bible.

Here is proof God exists:

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. For details go here:

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=71
http://www.apologeticspress.ws/articles/1762
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/index.php? ... cle&id=137
http://www.existence-of-god.com/first-c ... ument.html
http://www.existence-of-god.com/existence-of-god.html
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

Here is proof God is the author of the Bible: The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.100prophecies.com/
http://www.raptureforums.com/BibleProph ... stdays.cfm
http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible ... filled.htm
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophe ... lity-bible
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.htm

Here is evidence the Bible is accurate:

Archaeology confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry_out.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
http://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-bi ... cal-record
http://www.biblestudysite.com/arch.htm

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

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scienti ... bible.html
http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
your last statement - that may be true, but that does not support your claim that the Bible is reliable, still less infallible. Why should any, but any, ancient book be consistently true? TBH I am too lazy, having been on this forum a long time and seen other posters like you, to critique all of the Xian sources you cite, but my general reaction is this. The Bible is not total rubbish. It is in fact a compelling mix of history, prophecy, metaphysics, ethics and inspiration, but this does not entail its infallibility or reliability. If you were minded to, you could easily find websites which show the Bible's internal contradictions and also the instances where its narrative account of Israel's history depart from secular archaeological findings. I know that you will not do so, ie investigate such sites, as you have made up your mind to believe it, come what may

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#60 Post by animist » May 5th, 2016, 11:28 pm

Pahu wrote:"
animist wrote:hi Pahu, that is interesting, but the link you quote is just a publisher blurb, so I have to ask whether you have actually read this book; if you have, please give us a taster of it.
I did provide a taste of it and yes, I have read it. You can read the book online here: https://books.google.com/books?id=XcHCA ... 52&f=false
had you noticed that the extract does not cover reincarnation?

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

Re: Science Disproves Evolution

#61 Post by animist » May 5th, 2016, 11:51 pm

Pahu wrote:
animist wrote:As for the Stevenson book, I think this is indeed an interesting set of studies of claimed reincarnation cases, all of them in India (a nation whose religion centres on reincarnation); even if they "proved" reincarnation (which I doubt they do), it would not advance your Hindu-Xian synthesis faith
Most of the children studied are from India but there are other cases in other countries.
you are right to point out that Stevenson studied children other than Indians. However, many of these (eg the Tlingit case) seem to be in other societies which believe in reincarnation, and the wiki article on him does not point to much solid evidence: the one Western example (Edward Ryall) seems to have been discredited. I should remind you that extraordinary claims, such as reincarnation, require extraordinary evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Post Reply