• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
YoursTrue said:
Please --

So the proposition must be that nothing was there before the mass that caused the "big bang," or that the mass was always there. Right?
Click to expand...
No, it is that there was no 'before the Big Bang. Time itself didn't exist, so the very concept of 'before' doesn't apply.

Yes -- kind of like it or not, it's related to the ToE. Because without something being 'there" before evolution on the earth then evolution as proposed would not have happened. So -- let's work logically and honestly if possible.
Click to expand...
Yes, the universe existed for 10 billion years before life got started, The sun was not a first generation star: there were other stars that existed well before the sun. The Earth formed along with the sun and the planets of our solar system.

There should be only two possibilities for the elements that supposedly caused evolution on the earth. One is that the mass that exploded called the "Big Bang" was always there before the explosion or the second possibility is that it was not there and -- the mass came from nothing. Could there be any other possibilities?
Click to expand...
First, the formation of the universe was 10 billion years before the first life on Earth. The two processes have almost nothing to do with each other (except that the basic materials for the Earth were formed after the formation of the universe and before the first life).

The third possibility is that there was no 'before the Big Bang': that time itself didn't exist, so there was literally no 'before'.

Also, your very question shows a common mistake. The Big Bang was NOT a 'mass that exploded'. The Big Bang was an expansion of space, NOT an explosion.

Now if that's too hard to answer, or you feel it's not integral to the discussion, can you please give the basic scientific answer as to what elements started life on the earth (by life for this discussion I mean evolution)..
Click to expand...

Well, the basic elements of life are carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, sodium, chlorine, etc. Those all existed by the time the Earth formed.

Those elements formed simple chemicals at first: methane, water, ammonia, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and many others. Those were the original chemicals from which life developed.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
YoursTrue said:
I'm referring, NOT to abiogenesis, but to what scientists consider to be the first 'things'(?) that moved into plants and animals on this earth. (This seems to be a very difficult question to answer(?)
Click to expand...

The difficulty is that your question assumes things that are false. Plants and animals were not the first type of life. ALL life on Earth was single celled for the first 3 billion years or so.

So the first life was similar to bacteria today: single celled, no nucleus in the cell, basic metabolism, etc.

OK, I looked up (again) the word abiogenesis. Therefore, let me elucidate: one definition of abiogenesis is:
"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."
So -- I rephrase -- what do scientists say are the first living organisms on earth??
Click to expand...

The first living things on Earth were single celled bacteria. They were very simple cells, with no nucleus and a simple metabolism.

After almost 2 billion years, more complex cells with nuclei and other organelles developed. The first plants and animals were single celled.

it wasn't until a bit less than a billion years ago (so almost 3 billion years after life started on earth and almost 13 billion years since the universe started) that the first life with more than one cell developed. The first animals were similar to worms and the first plants were similar to algae.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
YoursTrue said:
I'm referring, NOT to abiogenesis, but to what scientists consider to be the first 'things'(?) that moved into plants and animals on this earth. (This seems to be a very difficult question to answer(?)
OK, I looked up (again) the word abiogenesis. Therefore, let me elucidate: one definition of abiogenesis is:
"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."
So -- I rephrase -- what do scientists say are the first living organisms on earth??
Click to expand...

We don't have a clear idea, because of the lack of evidence. The farthest back we can extrapolate from today's life is something called LUCA, the last universal common ancestor. Details here: Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

This would have been a very primitive single-celled organism. If you read the article, you can see the discussion is all about the biochemistry it would have had, because that is where you end up, as you go right back towards the start. Much further back and you are into abiogenesis, i.e. what biochemistry went on before there was a stable form of reproduction involving inheritance. Before LUCA, we just don't know. All we have are hypotheses.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
metis said:
"Evolution" is just plain old common sense-- all material things appear to change over time and life forms are made out of material elements in various patterns,
Click to expand...
It should be clear by now that this guy has no ideas. We've had 13 pages of this crap, without even a hint of one. It's all about how brilliant he is - with zero evidence to back that up.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
exchemist said:
It should be clear by now that this guy has no ideas. We've had 13 pages of this crap, without even a hint of one. It's all about how brilliant he is - with zero evidence to back that up.
Click to expand...
You know, I do not normally trust human's explanation, unless I could check that in real world..
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
blü 2 said:
The theory explaining the observation that change occurs in the manner genes are expressed in biological populations across generations.

(I thought you'd have found that out for yourself, made yourself familiar with both the evidence and the modern theory derived from that evidence, before setting out to refute it.)
No one. It remains a theory in very high standing in the scientific community. (More than sixty years of modern Young Earth Creationism has failed to put even the tiniest scientific scratch on it.)
How, exactly? On the basis of what examinable evidence?
You mentioned Intelligent Design, but as I said before, that crashed and burnt with no survivors at the >Dover Trial< (2005). You'll need a thorough understanding of the case before proceeding.

It would be nice if there were a polite way of saying this, but you sound altogether clueless about the whole business.
Click to expand...
I cannot elaborate here. Wait until I submitted it and rejected. I hope that they will be very fair... Again, if you know how to cut a tree, then, you could also falsify ToE.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Actually, science is not a fight, but you know, there are many supporters of ToE that instead of rejoicing and be happy that we can replace the 163 years old classic erroneous Theory, many are very afraid and probably angry!
Click to expand...
Slow down, you, and no on else, has demonstrated that ToE is erroneous. Who are these people that are afraid, exactly?

If you are seeing any sort of push back it is likely against creationists who spread disinformation about science. Creationism and ID has been little more than fraud that unethical people have used on gullible Christians for money. The Discovery Institute isn't a science lab, it is a set of rented office spaces where disinformation is created. Thus far you offer no evidence that your work is any different. Feel free to prove me wrong.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I am thinking. Which do you think is good?
Click to expand...
Marvel would be appropriate for publication of your ideas.

I make a joke here but it reminds me of the first time I became aware of creationism. My mom and me ere visiting my aunt/uncle/cousins when I was in high school and on their coffee table was a crude magazine that depicted humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time. It gave a young earth creationist timeline for the planet and humans, including the global flood that killed the dinos. I thought it was a comic book and found it pretty funny. No, they said that was a true explanation of life on earth over the last 6000 years. I was flabbergasted that they believed this. They were Southern Baptist and lived in a small Kansas town.

From then on I looked into creationism and became more and more aware of this Christian movement in the USA. Some years later after ID had replaced creationism these people tried to influence school boards all over the USA. In Kansas they set up public meetings that promoted the new ID as a way to support school board members running for office. I went to one of these and it was a propaganda show. It was poorly designed as this presentation began with a prayer and a live music that was devotional. Talk about being transparent about what your aim is. At the end they had an open mic for questions. There were a number of experts in science asking hard questions to the panel and they ended up ending the A&Q early.

In the election 6 of the 10 seats went to creationists and they started recommendations to replace science books all over Kansas. They tried to ban certain lessons of biology and insist teacher give time to "alternative views" of biology. However, within a year two of these members were out, one due to business fraud and the other caught having an affair on her husband. These seats were replaced with ethical people and the creationist ploy ended. These creationists tried to get new people elected but Kansas voters wanted none of it.

ID has been little more than fraud and disruptive of competent science education. And that is the side you stand with.
 
Daniel Nicholson

Daniel Nicholson

Blasphemous Pryme
Hey at least you got honest feedback, right? Brutally honest, but it's better than your close friends telling you the theory is great.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I cannot elaborate here.
Click to expand...
But based on what you've shown here and the manner in which you've shown it, I'll be very surprised ─ astonished ─ if you can elaborate such a thing coherently anywhere else.

You don't appear to know what the Theory of Evolution is, let alone the evidence for it.

Are you sure you're not a troll?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top