The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[Wildswanderer]

Hunting predators that select the weaker prey animals. Diseases that attack any person good or bad. The miscarriage rate of 15% in humans.

What do these tell you?

That we live in a cursed world.
The fact that we long for a world that doesn't have these defects should tell us that we were made for a different world.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hunting predators that select the weaker prey animals.

BtW this is not necessarily the case. Most predators are opportunists, they will take whoever is available.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You can think it, but that doesn't make it so. What do you mean by that phrase?

I mean there has to be a reason for the existence of the universe we live in. There has to be a first cause. You can't have matter unless something existed before matter.

 

[ppp]

I mean there has to be a reason for the existence of the universe we live in.

Does there? I mean after all, you think that there has to be something that exist for no reason. That something is simply a brute fact. Why not the universe? There is nothing about the Big bang theory that even remotely hints or requires that there had to be a cause for material existence.

You can't have matter unless something existed before matter.

You're just making that up.

 

[gnostic]

I didn't. And you just confirmed what I said.

This thread is about Evolution, not about Abiogenesis, and yet creationists such as yourself, cannot grasp the differences.

And often creationists are science-illiterate, they cannot learn what either subjects say, so they make up things, like you thinking life was created from nothing:

And since science cannot explain why something exists instead of nothing, it's as good as any explanation...

This "something from nothing" is not only creationist's misunderstanding of Evolution, but their misunderstanding of Abiogenesis.

Basically, creationists cannot learn biology without MAKING UP THINGS THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH EITHER EVOLUTION OR ABIOGENESIS.

Evolution required life to exist already, because part of the process of Evolution required there be parents, therefore ancestors have to exist. So you are wrong, because Evolution REQUIRE there to be genetic information (DNA or RNA, or even both) to pass from parents to offspring, hence requiring ancestors and descendants...so having ancestors aren't "NOTHING".

Likewise, in Abiogenesis, for life to exist, it required biological matters, such as cells, and in every cells there are proteins, nucleic acid (meaning RNA or DNA) and carbohydrates (sugars as components in RNA & in DNA, or as energy storage in maintaining life). All three of these biological molecules (or compounds) are required for exist, and basically these biological molecules are chemical composition of carbon-based molecules or compounds. Hence, cells and biological molecules, are not "NOTHING".

And since biological molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, are organic chemistry, the chemical elements that exist in these biochemical compounds, like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and with or without nitrogen, these elements are not "NOTHING".

Only uneducated creationists think that Evolution or Abiogenesis support this "something from nothing" scenario. Abiogenesis and Evolution this "nothing" scenario; the whole "nothing" scenarios are just based on creationists ignorance on the subjects, and worse propaganda, hence deception using misdirection.

Creationists are not known for their intellects or for their honesty, when they tried to delve into science.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Does there? I mean after all, you think that there has to be something that exist for no reason. That something is simply a brute fact. Why not the universe? There is nothing about the Big bang theory that even remotely hints or requires that there had to be a cause for material existence.


You're just making that up.

Well to believe otherwise you have to reject science. Nothing has been observed to happen without a cause.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Evolution required life to exist already, because part of the process of Evolution required there be parents, therefore ancestors have to exist. So you are wrong, because Evolution REQUIRE there to be genetic information (DNA or RNA, or even both) to pass from parents to offspring, hence requiring ancestors and descendants...so having ancestors aren't "NOTHING".

Duh. Obviously.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Likewise, in Abiogenesis, for life to exist, it required biological matters, such as cells, and in every cells there are proteins, nucleic acid (meaning RNA or DNA) and carbohydrates (sugars as components in RNA & in DNA, or as energy storage in maintaining life). All three of these biological molecules (or compounds) are required for exist, and basically these biological molecules are chemical composition of carbon-based molecules or compounds. Hence,

Duh, obviously

 

[Wildswanderer]

And since biological molecules, like proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates, are organic chemistry, the chemical elements that exist in these biochemical compounds, like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and with or without nitrogen, these elements are not "NOTHING".

So the elements formed themselves? Already then! So you do believe in something from nothing after all.

 

[ppp]

Nothing has been observed to happen without a cause.

To believe that, you would have to reject science.
First: Radioactive decay is non-causal.
Second: Nothing has been observed to begin to exist from a cause.

 

[Wildswanderer]

To believe that, you would have to reject science.
First: Radioactive decay is non-causal.
Second: Nothing has been observed to begin to exist from a cause.

That makes no sense. A baby begins to exist from a cause.
How can anything decay unless it is first caused to exist?

 

[Aupmanyav]

To believe that, you would have to reject science.
First: Radioactive decay is non-causal.
Second: Nothing has been observed to begin to exist from a cause.

Every thing has a cause except God popping out of nowhere.

"Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity, radioactive disintegration, or nuclear disintegration) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by radiation. A material containing unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Three of the most common types of decay are alpha decay (α-decay), beta decay (β-decay), and gamma decay (γ-decay), all of which involve emitting one or more particles. The weak force is the mechanism that is responsible for beta decay, while the other two are governed by the electromagnetic and strong forces." Wikipedia

 

[ppp]

That makes no sense. A baby begins to exist from a cause.

You are equivocating two different meanings of beginning to exist. When you are talking about the material universe beginning to exist, you are claiming that the material that comprises the universe did not exist until your god poofed it into existence. Where as when a baby "comes into existence" the baby is a rearrangement of already existing atoms. All of the atoms of which I am composed, existed before I was ever conceived.

Poofed into existence. Rearangement of existing things.

Two different meanings of beginning to exist.

So, make a decision. Are you claiming that the universe was a rearrangement of existing material stuff (like a baby). Or did your god simply bring it into existence by his will?

How can anything decay unless it is first caused to exist?

Decay is nothing more than the rearrangement of existing stuff via chemical processes. When physicists say that neither matter nor energy are ever destroyed, they really mean that. It is not just hollow words.

 

[ppp]

Every thing has a cause except a God popping out of nowhere.

"Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay, radioactivity, radioactive disintegration, or nuclear disintegration) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy by radiation. A material containing unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Three of the most common types of decay are alpha decay (α-decay), beta decay (β-decay), and gamma decay (γ-decay), all of which involve emitting one or more particles. The weak force is the mechanism that is responsible for beta decay, while the other two are governed by the electromagnetic and strong forces." Wikipedia

You are confusing the mechanism by which a particle decays with the cause for the decay of a given particle. IIRC, one of those is actually caused, but it has been a long time and I do not remember which one.

 

[gnostic]

So the elements formed themselves? Already then! So you do believe in something from nothing after all.

Man, you can't help yourself, can you?

This is strawman argument.

You are claiming things that I didn't say.

What you are saying -

"So the elements formed themselves?" & "So you do believe in something from nothing after all."​

- these 2 sentences don't make sense. How do you get from “element forming themselves” to “elements being form from nothing”? You do realize they are not the same?

Did you even learn high school chemistry? Because what you said, don't make sense.

Elements can only be made from atoms, and atoms are not "nothing".

And it is the same with molecules and compounds, all made from atoms...and again, atoms are not made from "nothing".

An element, as well as a molecule, at least need to be made of 2 atoms, but can be more than 2 atoms.

Compounds are made of 2 or more molecules, or made of a molecule with element.

That's just basic very chemistry.

Elements, molecules and compound together due to chemical reaction, usually when 1 atom loses one or more electrons, therefore making this atom - "positive charged". To balance this atom (making it electrical neutral), it will bond with another atom, so the element or molecule will become electrically neutral.

Understanding all of the above, is simple, and very basic chemistry, which you should have learned in chemistry.

So to go back to your original claims, "So the elements formed themselves?", an element is made of 2 or more "like" atoms.

To give you a very simple answer, the most basic element of air, it comprise of 2 oxygen atoms, so this air would be denote with the symbol O2.

Air (element) isn't made of "nothing"; it is made of 2 oxygen atoms. So yes, elements can form itself, due to basic chemical reaction, when 1 oxygen loses an electron, so the only way it positive-charged atom can become electrical neutral, if it bonded with another oxygen atom.

Elements cannot be made from nothing, they are made from atoms.

Likewise, molecules are made from 2 or more atoms, of different atoms.

So the most basic molecule of smoke, is usually result in combustion (burning), and will result in chemical reaction of 1 carbon atom will bond with 1 oxygen atom that you get the symbol for carbon monoxide ==>

CO​

A carbon and an oxygen atoms are not "nothing".

We breath in air, but exhale carbon dioxide, which comprise of 1 carrbon and 2 oxygen atoms, so the symbol, we get ==>

CO2​

Again, the molecule for carbon dioxide are made from 3 atoms, carbon dioxide isn't made from "nothing".

And molecules and compounds get even more complex, when you start learning organic chemistry.

All life (organisms) comprise of cells. The cells may differed, having different functions, like cells in muscle differed from bone tissues or nerves, but every single cell are made whole bunch of different molecules and compounds.

My points that elements, molecules and compounds don't make themselves "from nothing", and it is absurd that you think it does.

And elements, molecules and compounds "form" through chemical processes, which are natural processes, not by your silly "supernatural" creation or miracles from Genesis.

What cannot happen, is Genesis 2, where Adam was created from the dust. Dust cannot MAGICALLY transform into a living human being.

Whoever wrote Genesis (the author or authors) would be considered to be a bloody moron by today's standard. The author had no understanding of biology, because you cannot turn lifeless dust into cells of organic matters, let alone a whole human.

EDIT

I would like to point out that we don't just breath in O2 air.

Air often include some nitrogen too. Dry air in our atmosphere actually have more nitrogen than oxygen. Plus, there are gaseous form of water (H2O) in the form of water vapor.

But I was trying to demonstrate what element is, using O2 air as example of element.​

 

[gnostic]

@Wildswanderer

Even the individual atoms are not made "from nothing". They are composed of nuclei with protons and neutrons, plus electrons. These are particles that make up a single atom.

Even proton and neutron isn't made from nothing. Each proton or neutron made of 3 quarks.

But as I understand Quantum Field Theory (QFT), every particles including those that make up matters, as well as leptons, bosons (eg photons, gluons), etc, are all made of fields.

These fields existed everywhere in the universe. Quantum fields even exist at the very instance of Big Bang occur.

The quantum fields from the every beginning of our universe, are the building blocks, of every particles, from elementary particles to composite particles (composite particles, like mesons and hadrons (eg protons, neutrons).

So fields are not "nothing".

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are confusing the mechanism by which a particle decays with the cause for the decay of a given particle. IIRC, one of those is actually caused, but it has been a long time and I do not remember which one.

The cause of Quantum Mechanics. Change is the only constant.

 

[ppp]

The cause of Quantum Mechanics. Change is the only constant.

That is some lovely poetry. I'm sure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hecleitus (c. 535 – c. 475 BCE, fl. 500 BCE) said that. For more quotes from Heracleitus, see the topic "Are Bahaollah's prophecies coming true?"

 

[gnostic]

The cause of Quantum Mechanics. Change is the only constant.

Now, the last part, is very intriguing.