Science Disproves Evolution

[Thathighkid]

The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution, I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it. And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.

[Pahu78]

The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution,

How?

I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it.

What makes you think the Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution?

And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.

Since the subject is scientific discovery, research, etc. it is true that discussing God is somewhat off-subject. However, since science does disprove evolution, that does suggest creation, which requires a Creator.

How do you know God isnâ??t real? Could you provide evidence supporting your assertion? Using the facts of science, the existence of God can be proved.

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2c
[/align]

â??It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.â?� Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

â??... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.â?� E. J. H. Corner, â??Evolution,â?� Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 3c
[/align]

â??The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.â?� Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.

â??The origin of angiosperms, an â??abominable mysteryâ?? to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.â?� Colin Patterson et al., â??Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,â?� Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[Pahu78]

[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1d-f
[/align]

d. â??The insect fossil record has many gaps.â?� â??Insects: Insect Fossil Record,â?� Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).

e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

â??As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.â?� Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

â??How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.â?� Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.

â??Origin of the vertebrates is obscureâ??there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.â?� Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.

f. â??...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.â?� Taylor, p. 60.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps

[JaggedEdge]

The universe exists. Is it eternal or did it have a beginning? It could not be eternal since that would mean that an infinite amount of time had to be crossed to get to the present. But, you cannot cross an infinite amount of time (otherwise it wouldn't be infinite). Therefore, the universe had a beginning. 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. The Bible promotes this sufficient cause as God. What does atheism offer instead of God? If nothing, then atheism is not able to account for our own existence.
.

I never understood this logic. If something had do bring the universe into existence, than by the same logic, someone had to bring this superior being who created it into existence. You are dealing with an infinity regardless. I fail to see how believing in an infinite powerful being is any different than believing in an infinite universe...

Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

[bigtopsfinn]

Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Remember in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Indie had to take a "blind leap of faith" as his last challenge before finding the Holy Grail? I think this is what they were referring to.

Blind leaps of faith work very well for some people, but not everyone... to each his own

[Pahu78]

I never understood this logic. If something had do bring the universe into existence, than by the same logic, someone had to bring this superior being who created it into existence. You are dealing with an infinity regardless. I fail to see how believing in an infinite powerful being is any different than believing in an infinite universe...

Your confusion may be the result of equating the infinite Creator with the finite universe. 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. Itâ??s a simple matter of physics.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

I canâ??t explain how God can exist without a beginning. There are some things we cannot understand because of our limited perspective. This is one of them. Here is another example:

Join me on an imaginary trip into the pastâ??way back into the past. Letâ??s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.

So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, letâ??s take another step into the past. Letâ??s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldnâ??t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.

But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It canâ??t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.

As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.

Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, Iâ??ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.

[from â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]

[Garrett]

In my opinion I see believing god as the easy way out. Humans can't even comprehend a thing so large with no beginning or end. It's a big mystery that I doubt we will ever figure out. I canâ??t even imagine the universe never being born or how big it is.... It scares me.

[Coelho]

Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).

Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.

And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys. But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.

(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)

--------------------

Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.