After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answered the most basic questions of theist?

Charles Hodge Systematic theology copywrite 1870.

Although Strauss greatly exaggerates when he says that men of science in our day are unanimous
in supporting the doctrine of spontaneous generation, it is undoubtedly true that a large class of
naturalists, especially on the continent of Europe, are in favour of that doctrine. Professor Huxley,
in his discourse on the “Physical Basis of Life,� lends to it the whole weight of his authority. He
does not indeed expressly teach that dead matter becomes active without being subject to the
influence of previous living matter; but his whole paper is designed to show that life is the result
of the peculiar arrangement of the molecules of matter. His doctrine is that “the matter of life is
composed of ordinary matter, differing from it only in the manner in which its atoms are
aggregated.�2 “If the properties of water,� he says, “may be properly said to result from the nature
and disposition of its component molecules, I can find no intelligible ground for refusing to say
that the properties of protoplasm result from the nature and disposition of its molecules.�3 In his
address before the British Association, he says that if he could look back far enough into the past
he should expect to see “the evolution of living protoplasm from not living matter.� And although
that address is devoted to showing that spontaneous generation, or Abiogenesis, as it is called, has
never been proved, he says, “I must carefully guard myself against the supposition that I intend to
suggest that no such thing as Abiogenesis has ever taken place in the past or ever will take place
in the future. With organic chemistry, molecular physics, and physiology yet in their infancy, and
every day making prodigious strides, I think it would be the height of presumption for any man to
say that the conditions under which matter assumes the properties we call ‘vital,’ may not some
day be artificially brought together.�4 All this supposes that life is the product of physical causes;
that all that is requisite for its production is “to bring together� the necessary conditions.

The theist argument has not changed in 150 years.

In 1870, the full problem in the fossil record of the Cambrian explosion had still not been fully realized.

In 1870 an equation to calculate rate of beneficial mutations in organisms, which makes it impossible for the cambrian explosion to happen through naturalistic means.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #101

Post by Diagoras »

EarthScienceguy wrote:One of the problems of this theory is that "birds" came from dinosaurs or at least that is the "theory". I am not sure how birds could have come from dinosaurs if there are bird fossils that predate the supposed age the dinosaurs that they came from.
One of the problems with the bible is that “bats� are of the same kind as birds like the heron and the lapwing or at least that is the “theory�. I am not sure how bats could have come to be mistaken for birds if there are examples of birds in the bible in the same list of “fowls� as bats.
Leviticus 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
What’s anyone willing to bet that I can’t turn just about any ‘argument against science’ around in a similar manner? We’ll end up with a bigger list, I’m sure. With the added problem that the bible’s ‘peer review process’ (i.e. modern translation and interpretation) is haphazard, bitterly divided between ‘denominations’ and utterly resistant to change.
Christianity has not changed its belief system to accommodate scientific thought.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #102

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 98 by DrNoGods]
Where on earth did you get that? It could be the single most outrageous thing you have ever posted here, and that is saying something. If you so misunderstand what a hypothesis is that you think it is a conclusion, it is easy to see then how you can buy into something like Humphreys' planetary magnetic field nonsense and think it is legitimate science. Surely you are joking?
Are you trying to say that a hypothesis does not give the reason as to why the independent variable changed the dependent variable?

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #103

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 92 by DrNoGods]
What? A hypothesis is not a conclusion. It is a proposed explanation of something that then has to be confirmed by observation, measurement, various experiments, etc. What Humphreys' and his like do is backwards from actual science. They start with a conclusion (whatever the bible says), then try to find some way to manipulate things to get that answer while looking scientific if they can.


This I not even possible when making a prediction. How can someone start with a conclusion when the conclusion is unknown. It is not possible to work backward. NASA did that after they measured the magnetic fields of Uranus they changed their equation to predict the magnetic field of Neptune. Because Humphrey's already predicted them to be the same or at least most people believed they would be the same.

Humphreys's theory also predicted that the galaxies would have magnetic fields. But for naturalist galaxies having a magnetic field is a mystery.

The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection. This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field.http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Gal ... tic_fields

I am sure he started with the conclusion with the magnetic fields of galaxies also. It is preposterous to say that Humphrey's started with the conclusion when the conclusion was not known and was impossible to calculate before he proposed his theory.

So, your hypothesis that Humphrey's started with the conclusion is impossible.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #104

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 97 by Diagoras]
What? “There can be no birds�? How did you leap to that conclusion?

Here are some interesting recent articles relating to the evolution of birds. Anyone studying the field would know that many anatomical features unique to modern birds (including, but not limited to, feathers) were shared by some species of dinosaurs, but not always by the same species at the same time. Thus, there are examples of feathered dinosaurs that we’d definitely not class as birds, as well as later ‘birds’ exhibiting teeth (not a feature of modern birds).
Researchers have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight -- and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 092055.htm

The fossils, Protarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui, are claimed to be ‘the immediate ancestors of the first birds, these first appeared in the fossil record "130 million years ago". But this is a little difficult when the oldest bird fossils are 160 million years old. The ancestors of birds arrived after birds were on the earth.

Birds also appear to have come from a very few species, because of a bottleneck after the make-believe asteroid impact.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #105

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 100 by Diagoras]
One of the problems with the bible is that “bats� are of the same kind as birds like the heron and the lapwing or at least that is the “theory�. I am not sure how bats could have come to be mistaken for birds if there are examples of birds in the bible in the same list of “fowls� as bats.
Quote:
Leviticus 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
Hebrew word for "fowl" simply means winged creature and can also include insects.

Genesis 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

There is more than one kind of flying creature.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #106

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 94 by Clownboat]
I bolded what you were asked to respond to.
I know it is much easier to complain about other theories in place of answering debate questions, but would you be so kind as to at least try?
An asteroid impact killing the dinosaurs is not a settled scientific theory. Not even all naturalists believe that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.
That was not the question:
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?" This was the question.
And I did respond to this question. Birds become a huge problem for the asteroid theory without dinosaurs according to naturalist theory there can be no birds.
2nd part of the question:
"If not, how do you refute the evidence that leads to that conclusion?"

Your bird/dinosaur distraction was just that, a distraction in place of answering legitamate debate questions.

Pretend we agree for a moment that birds did not descend from dinosaurs. Perhaps that will allow you to stay focused on the actual question at hand about collision events and the evidence they left. We cannot learn from you if you continue to respond to questions that are not asked of you.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #107

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 105 by Clownboat]
That was not the question:
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?" This was the question.
Oh my! No, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact just like another naturalist that does not believe that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. This is not even a creation question because it is not even settled in evolutionary circles.

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648


The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have a dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #108

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 92 by DrNoGods]

READERS TAKE NOTE

Humphrey's magnetic field predictions are never said to be incorrect. But simply that Humphrey's somehow magically manufactured his numbers from values that had not yet been measured. That is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Also notice that it is not just one value but many all were correct.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #109

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 105 by Clownboat]
That was not the question:
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?" This was the question.
Oh my! No, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact just like another naturalist that does not believe that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. This is not even a creation question because it is not even settled in evolutionary circles.

The newest research, led by Gerta Keller of Princeton University in New Jersey, and Thierry Adatte of the University of Lausanne, Switzerland, uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as much as 300,000 years.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648


The scientists also found evidence that the Chicxulub impact didn't have a dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested.

At one site at El Penon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules.

"We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact," says Keller.

This conclusion should not come as too great a surprise, she says. None of the other great mass extinctions are associated with an impact, and no other large craters are known to have caused a significant extinction event.
https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=114648
You once again failed to address the questions asked of you.
We cannot learn from you if you continue to respond to questions that are not asked of you.

Clownboat's many attempts intitially asked by Zzyzx (if I remember correctly):
"Do you believe that such a collision occurred?"
Earthscienceguy's response:
"No, I do not believe that the dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid impact..."

Readers, it is painfully obvious as to why Earthscienceguy does not want to address an impact event that took place 66 million years ago. He would prefer to be intellectually dishonest and pretent that I'm asking about dinosaur extinction when clearly that is not being asked.

I must assume ancient impact events are just another problem with science that earthguy has due to holding on to his sinking ship that is a young earth. More will follow...
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: After over 150 years, why has evolution still not answer

Post #110

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 101 by EarthScienceguy]
Are you trying to say that a hypothesis does not give the reason as to why the independent variable changed the dependent variable?
hypothesis noun
hy·​poth·​e·​sis | \ hī-ˈpä-thə-səs
plural hypotheses\ hī-​ˈpä-​thə-​ˌsēz

Definition of hypothesis

1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action.
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences.
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement.

A hypothesis is not a conclusion, as you stated. That is what I responded to. Above is a definition of the word hypothesis, and it does not use the terms dependent and independent variables. You're changing the subject (again), and throwing out comments that have nothing to do with the subject.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply