Alternative to evolution and creationism

[ImmortalFlame]

Natural selection fails the requirements for the Scientific Method aswell. Who has ever tested, measured or witnessed natural selection, how can such an abstract concept be scientific? Can natural selection be put into a vial, can it be weighed? Not science is it?

You just demonstrated that you haven't got the faintest clue of what you're talking about.

/thread

 

[Looncall]

Electricity is a form of energy. Electricity is the flow of electrons. All matter is made up of atoms, everything is alive in the universe. Everything is a form of energy.

Energy is activity, everything is active and alive in the universe becuase energy is everywhere and in everything.

Energy exists in different forms but is neither created nor destroyed; it simply converts to another form, it has existed eternally. Life is energy. Energy is transmitted in waves, waves of information. Life is energy is information, alive.

All life is energy. Even every nerve impulse in your body is an electric current, flowing with life.

Everything in life is energy. There is nothing which is not energy. Everything vibrates with this energy, and the number of vibrations, or wave patterns, within a given period of time is called the “frequency” with which the energy fluctuates. Energy is always fluctuating. So, life is energy, energy never dies, it just changes form. Life is energy, I am energy, you are energy, everything is energy. All the things that you know are energy, like light, heat, electricity etc. are energy and all of the things that you don't think are energy, like plants, animals, rocks etc. are also energy. It is not possible to have non-energy, there is no such thing as non-life.

Mere new-agey word salad. You are not using the word life in any even remotely accepted sense. Energy is not a substance. In science, energy is just the capacity to do work (force times distance). Colloquial meanings do not count for this discussion.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Kind of like saying, is there an alternative to round earthism and flat earthism? Feasibly there could be some alternative called "square earthism" especially for creationists who subscribe to a book where the earth is said to have corners.

 

[painted wolf]

Kind of like saying, is there an alternative to round earthism and flat earthism? Feasibly there could be some alternative called "square earthism" especially for creationists who subscribe to a book where the earth is said to have corners.

Time cube... :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[Viker]

Theres are loads and loads of different evolutionary theories or creationist theories, but is there anything which is completey opposed to both creationism and evolution?

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either:

The theory of Independent Origins is atheistic, and materialistic yet at the same time completey opposed to evolution.

The Independent Origins Theory - Only seems to have two scientists and research teams behind this theory.

In a nutshell the theory of Independent Origins says that ALL organisms on earth have originated from primordial soups (chemical pools of acids etc) on the earth millions of years ago. So everything from frogs, to monkeys to plants, insects to snakes to humans.. etc yes everything originated from these chemical ponds independently, starting off as embryos etc in chemicals then leaving the ponds, to what we have on earth today.

The two scientists behind this theory are Periannan Senapathy a molecular biologist he has authored the book Independent Birth of Organisms, look up the book to learn about this guys theory. There much more to it, I have just summarised it in a nutshell.

The other scientist is Christian Schwabe a biochemist, he calls his theory the Genomic Potential Hypothesis, so instead of one origin like most evolutionists say.. these guys theories claim billions of independent origins.

Interesting!

Okay. How do these guys explain how puddles of soup got to be frogs with out using evolutionary theory? Which I think you have misunderstood them some how.

BTW, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with how life became diverse. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life.

 

[Viker]

Hey man. The earth is flat! Prove me wrong. :beach:

 

[McBell]

BTW, evolution does not deal with the origin of life. It deals with how life became diverse. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life.

I find it rather comical and somewhat interesting how people who claim to have done their homework seem to almost always miss this point when coming up with and or presenting their alternative "theories"...

 

[Photonic]

Hey man. The earth is flat! Prove me wrong. :beach:

NSSDC Photo Gallery: Earth

There you go!

 

[idav]

Theres are loads and loads of different evolutionary theories or creationist theories, but is there anything which is completey opposed to both creationism and evolution?

No creation theory should have any issues with evolution. Though evolution does give several clues on our origins. Yes there are other creation theories but the odds are we come from one common ancestor otherwise you have to calculate the odds of abiogenesis happening several times over which would require a "miracle" because the odds get slimmer.

 

[EarthAlive]

How do these guys explain how puddles of soup got to be frogs with out using evolutionary theory? Which I think you have misunderstood them some how.

They start off as embryos in these ponds, it is not evolution. The frog is a frog not turning into anything else, study the life-cycle of the frog, it has never evolved into anything else. According to this theory of independent origins every organism on earth came from these ponds independently and organisms do not evolve into anything else, they are fixed, no evolution at all. All species have a separate origin. See here:

According to Dr. Senapathy:

Genome Data Proves False the Theory of Evolution, New Theory Shows Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry

The conventional theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed, according to three publications by scientists working for Genome International that appeared today in Nature Precedings. All life did not evolve from a simple, single-cell organism – a foundation of Darwinian Theory. Research now shows that a parallel development of genomes during earth’s Cambrian Period led to numerous complex life forms originating en masse.

Dr. Periannan Senapathy, president and scientific director, said "genomics has shown that evolutionary mechanisms believed to have created the diversity of life on earth are fundamentally flawed. Many scientists have now come out openly and said that the current theory of evolution cannot work. The theory offered is an entirely new worldview that fits perfectly with the genome data."

Furthermore, “a critical mistake of the theory of evolution was the assumption that completely distinct organisms could evolve from one common ancestor,” Dr. Senapathy said. “This idea failed to address that no absolutely distinct gene and therefore, organism, can ever be evolved. Several analyses demonstrate that the vast number of split genes simultaneously assembled into numerous genomes, and then gave rise to distinct organisms in the prebiotic pool. Unlike the theory of evolution, ROSG/PGA is in accord with molecular, morphological and fossil data.”

 

[outhouse]

They start off as embryos in these ponds, it is not evolution. The frog is a frog not turning into anything else, study the life-cycle of the frog, it has never evolved into anything else. According to this theory of independent origins every organism on earth came from these ponds independently and organisms do not evolve into anything else, they are fixed, no evolution at all. All species have a separate origin. See here:

According to Dr. Senapathy:

Genome Data Proves False the Theory of Evolution, New Theory Shows Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry



Dr. Periannan Senapathy, president and scientific director, said "genomics has shown that evolutionary mechanisms believed to have created the diversity of life on earth are fundamentally flawed. Many scientists have now come out openly and said that the current theory of evolution cannot work. The theory offered is an entirely new worldview that fits perfectly with the genome data."

Furthermore, “a critical mistake of the theory of evolution was the assumption that completely distinct organisms could evolve from one common ancestor,” Dr. Senapathy said. “This idea failed to address that no absolutely distinct gene and therefore, organism, can ever be evolved. Several analyses demonstrate that the vast number of split genes simultaneously assembled into numerous genomes, and then gave rise to distinct organisms in the prebiotic pool. Unlike the theory of evolution, ROSG/PGA is in accord with molecular, morphological and fossil data.”

wow turning fantasy into science in a few easy steps

 

[Dirty Penguin]

wow turning fantasy into science in a few easy steps

I think one of the things this hypothesis doesn't take into account is the fossil record. The further back we go the less complicated the life forms are. Either way you look at it....this hypothesis fails without the use of (biological evolution).....

 

[Looncall]

They start off as embryos in these ponds, it is not evolution. The frog is a frog not turning into anything else, study the life-cycle of the frog, it has never evolved into anything else. According to this theory of independent origins every organism on earth came from these ponds independently and organisms do not evolve into anything else, they are fixed, no evolution at all. All species have a separate origin. See here:

According to Dr. Senapathy:

Genome Data Proves False the Theory of Evolution, New Theory Shows Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry



Dr. Periannan Senapathy, president and scientific director, said "genomics has shown that evolutionary mechanisms believed to have created the diversity of life on earth are fundamentally flawed. Many scientists have now come out openly and said that the current theory of evolution cannot work. The theory offered is an entirely new worldview that fits perfectly with the genome data."

Furthermore, “a critical mistake of the theory of evolution was the assumption that completely distinct organisms could evolve from one common ancestor,” Dr. Senapathy said. “This idea failed to address that no absolutely distinct gene and therefore, organism, can ever be evolved. Several analyses demonstrate that the vast number of split genes simultaneously assembled into numerous genomes, and then gave rise to distinct organisms in the prebiotic pool. Unlike the theory of evolution, ROSG/PGA is in accord with molecular, morphological and fossil data.”

Senapathy is a crackpot. You are wasting bandwidth.

 

[painted wolf]

They start off as embryos in these ponds, it is not evolution. The frog is a frog not turning into anything else, study the life-cycle of the frog, it has never evolved into anything else. According to this theory of independent origins every organism on earth came from these ponds independently and organisms do not evolve into anything else, they are fixed, no evolution at all. All species have a separate origin. See here:

According to Dr. Senapathy:

Genome Data Proves False the Theory of Evolution, New Theory Shows Complex Animals and Plants Originated from Prebiotic Chemistry



Dr. Periannan Senapathy, president and scientific director, said "genomics has shown that evolutionary mechanisms believed to have created the diversity of life on earth are fundamentally flawed. Many scientists have now come out openly and said that the current theory of evolution cannot work. The theory offered is an entirely new worldview that fits perfectly with the genome data."

Furthermore, “a critical mistake of the theory of evolution was the assumption that completely distinct organisms could evolve from one common ancestor,” Dr. Senapathy said. “This idea failed to address that no absolutely distinct gene and therefore, organism, can ever be evolved. Several analyses demonstrate that the vast number of split genes simultaneously assembled into numerous genomes, and then gave rise to distinct organisms in the prebiotic pool. Unlike the theory of evolution, ROSG/PGA is in accord with molecular, morphological and fossil data.”

Wow... there is so much wrong with this in terms of basic biology that I'm not even sure where to start! :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

I think one of the things this hypothesis doesn't take into account is the fossil record. The further back we go the less complicated the life forms are. Either way you look at it....this hypothesis fails without the use of (biological evolution).....

i wouldnt be suprised if theology was behind this.

"kinds" again

 

[EarthAlive]

i wouldnt be suprised if theology was behind this.

"kinds" again

Dr. Senapathy is an atheist and materialist. The theory of Independent origins is in opposition to religious creationism.

 

[EarthAlive]

Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists - Telegraph

Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

Lawton, Graham. 21 January 2009. Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life. New Scientist Magazine, issue 2692.

"Now, scientists admit that “the tree-of-life concept…absolutely central to Darwin’s thinking, equal in importance to natural selection…lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence”

Graham Lawton admitted, “The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination” Lawton also interviewed evolutionary biologist Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, who exclaimed, “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality”

Though Darwin’s tree of life has been taught as fact for decades, the truth is, “we have no evidence at all” for it.

Just more evidence for Independent origins.

 

[outhouse]

Dr. Senapathy is an atheist and materialist. The theory of Independent origins is in opposition to religious creationism.

sorry he is more creationist then anything else.


Periannan Senapathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that the first half of Senapathy's book read like a typical creationist treatise with arguements based on gaps in the fossil record and the mention of mutations to descredit evolutionary biology.


the man is a quack

 

[EarthAlive]

sorry he is more creationist then anything else.


Periannan Senapathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that the first half of Senapathy's book read like a typical creationist treatise with arguements based on gaps in the fossil record and the mention of mutations to descredit evolutionary biology.


the man is a quack

Wikipedia is not an authority on scientific matters, anyone can edit that website.

 

[Matthew78]

Theres are loads and loads of different evolutionary theories or creationist theories, but is there anything which is completey opposed to both creationism and evolution?

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either:

The theory of Independent Origins is atheistic, and materialistic yet at the same time completey opposed to evolution.

The Independent Origins Theory - Only seems to have two scientists and research teams behind this theory.

In a nutshell the theory of Independent Origins says that ALL organisms on earth have originated from primordial soups (chemical pools of acids etc) on the earth millions of years ago. So everything from frogs, to monkeys to plants, insects to snakes to humans.. etc yes everything originated from these chemical ponds independently, starting off as embryos etc in chemicals then leaving the ponds, to what we have on earth today.

The two scientists behind this theory are Periannan Senapathy a molecular biologist he has authored the book Independent Birth of Organisms, look up the book to learn about this guys theory. There much more to it, I have just summarised it in a nutshell.

The other scientist is Christian Schwabe a biochemist, he calls his theory the Genomic Potential Hypothesis, so instead of one origin like most evolutionists say.. these guys theories claim billions of independent origins.

Interesting!

In order for me to take alternatives to mainstream theory seriously, these authors would have to explain evidence that most biologists argue supports evolution. They would have to explain anatomical homologies, molecular homologies, vestigial organs, the nested hiearchy of life, transitional fossil forms, and other biological oddities that make excellent sense in the light of evolution.

I'm curious-you seem especially attracted to alternative theories of evolution, or even origins. You reject creationism, which I deem to be good, yet you seem quite critical of mainstream theory. Is there a reason for this? I'm just curious.