Disproving Science with Science

Im not actually disproving science just one of its theories. Evolution

Scientific law states (roughly) that energey and matter can not be created or destroyed.

Wich means that evolution cannot be true because it says that there was such a great gravitational pull that kept pulling in particalls and particalls untill the pressure was so great there was an explosion (Big Bang)

Well if thats true then where did that energy and all those particalls come from?



Ok also supossedly there were animals a billion years ago developed wings and could fly

that right there is disproving it

for an animal species to not have wings at all and over a course of generations it has wings that is not possible because for somthing to pass on a genetic (Wings) it must have it in its genetic code but since the said creature did not have wings and it developed it means that it went through a mutation. and that disproves all of it.

If you people can not understand wat i mean then let me explain one simple fact

Mutations are not genetic!!! so that means if an animal did develop wings then it couldnt have passed it done the bloodline beacuse it was a mutation not a genetic strip of encoded DNA.

Do you people not read other posts? How many times does it have to be explained that EVOLUTION IS A FACT - it does happen, through which method, who cares it's still fact that evolution happens.


G

Originally posted by pumert
Im not actually disproving science just one of its theories. Evolution

Scientific law states (roughly) that energey and matter can not be created or destroyed.

Wich means that evolution cannot be true because it says that there was such a great gravitational pull that kept pulling in particalls and particalls untill the pressure was so great there was an explosion (Big Bang)

Oh the irony. Let's repeat it one more time, the Theory of Evolution, has absolutely nothing to do with the Theory of the Big Bang. The former concerns the changing of lifeforms over time through natural selection, the latter the origin of the universe.

And you obviously didn't understand a thing about the big bang if you think it's about particalls being "pulled together" until there was so much "pressure" that it caused an "explosion". The big bang was not caused by pressurized particles and was not an explosion.

Well if thats true then where did that energy and all those particalls come from?

If you want my opinion, the big bang doesn't make sense and is a theory that has a few problems in itself. But if the big bang did not happen, then the universe always existed, meaning that a god definitely did not create it. So if you believe in any kind of god you damn better cling on to the big bang.

Mutations are not genetic!!! so that means if an animal did develop wings then it couldnt have passed it done the bloodline beacuse it was a mutation not a genetic strip of encoded DNA.

Of course mutations are genetic !!! what else can mutate??

A mutation is by definition, an error in the copying of the genetic code.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide
If you want my opinion, the big bang doesn't make sense and is a theory that has a few problems in itself. But if the big bang did not happen, then the universe always existed, meaning that a god definitely did not create it. So if you believe in any kind of god you damn better cling on to the big bang.

Sorry but the big bang did happen - the cosmic microwave background proves this. Just what was prior is still debateable.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
Sorry but the big bang did happen - the cosmic microwave background proves this. Just what was prior is still debateable.

The cosmic microwave backround is extremely uniform, and doesn't explain how matter is clumped up now, 13 billion years later.

Also, the temperature of this backround is 2.73°K. However the big bang model predicted it to be 28°K, and that's a huge error, while static universe models predicted it to be 2.8°K.

And where is the "cosmic infrared backround" that was predicted by the big bang model?

I'm not saying the big bang is a false theory and that it didn't happen, but there is enough evidence against it to make me believe it might'nt have happened at all. Another example is the way they need to add incredible amounts of so called dark matter and dark energy (things that are intangible) to keep the theory floating..

Actually the reason we need dark matter is to keep Newton's Laws of Physics working. So are you saying that Newtons Laws are false? or that there are enough holes in them that there is a large probablility that they are not true?

Originally posted by DarkSide
The cosmic microwave backround is extremely uniform, and doesn't explain how matter is clumped up now, 13 billion years later.

Also, the temperature of this backround is 2.73°K. However the big bang model predicted it to be 28°K, and that's a huge error, while static universe models predicted it to be 2.8°K.

And where is the "cosmic infrared backround" that was predicted by the big bang model?

I'm not saying the big bang is a false theory and that it didn't happen, but there is enough evidence against it to make me believe it might'nt have happened at all. Another example is the way they need to add incredible amounts of so called dark matter and dark energy (things that are intangible) to keep the theory floating..

I'm not saying the big bang's exact but the CMB suggests that very early on in the universe's creation that it was extremely hot, which in turn suggests some 'big bang' type theory.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
I'm not saying the big bang's exact but the CMB suggests that very early on in the universe's creation that it was extremely hot, which in turn suggests some 'big bang' type theory.

Matter is clumped up in galaxy clusters (i.e: not evenly spread) yet the CMB is very uniform, and that would explain things better if the universe was not expanding.

Also the theory says that it's not the galaxies that are moving away from each other but that space itself is expanding (balloon analogy), however why aren't we observing our local space expanding? It can't be that only the intergalactic space is expanding.

Originally posted by DarkSide

Originally posted by shihulud
I'm not saying the big bang's exact but the CMB suggests that very early on in the universe's creation that it was extremely hot, which in turn suggests some 'big bang' type theory.

Matter is clumped up in galaxy clusters (i.e: not evenly spread) yet the CMB is very uniform, and that would explain things better if the universe was not expanding.

Eh? The WMAP project disagree's with you on the CMB being uniform. Although I do concede that it doesn't explain everything (the big bang that is), WMAP is one of the best proponents for a Big Bang Theory. But hey it only see's to 300-400 thousand years ago and then there's the 'horizon' that we can't see past. But as a Theory it kind of fits the available info that we are observing. I mean people aren't that stupid anymore (although some still refuse to accept reason), but as a working Theory it kind of hits most of the right notes, kinda like evolution (you know explains most things but has a few things that defy all known logic).

Also the theory says that it's not the galaxies that are moving away from each other but that space itself is expanding (balloon analogy), however why aren't we observing our local space expanding? It can't be that only the intergalactic space is expanding.

Because its only empty space that expands, the local gravitational distortions of matter provide more of a positive (constrictive) pressure that disrupts the negative (expansive) pressure of empty space, thereby creating a more stable point in space.


G

Originally posted by shihulud
But as a Theory it kind of fits the available info that we are observing. I mean people aren't that stupid anymore (although some still refuse to accept reason), but as a working Theory it kind of hits most of the right notes, kinda like evolution (you know explains most things but has a few things that defy all known logic).

Evolution is less controversial than the big bang however, as I can't think of any underlying current of biologists that reject evolution, but there are (altough a small number) physicists that claim to have evidence that goes against the big bang and support alternative models.

In fact there is no controversy regarding evolution, since those that reject are not scientists, and support religious beliefs.

Because its only empty space that expands, the local gravitational distortions of matter provide more of a positive (constrictive) pressure that disrupts the negative (expansive) pressure of empty space, thereby creating a more stable point in space.

Does that mean the space between the earth and the moon is expanding at the same rate as intergalactic space and that the space the earth occupies isn't?

reply to post by DarkSide


following newtons logic that 'energy cannot be created nor destroyed' it is evident then that the whole universe could not have come into existince in the first place, without there being some supernatuaral force to creat it. so natuarally the argument that energy cannot be created is defeated-if ofcourse we are not ignorant of the existence of this supernatural force(ie GOD). If you understand what im saying hear you would know that Im not actually disputing Newtons logic, im just merely completing his logic. Im just suggesting that maybe Newtons law should be reworded to something like, "energy can be created and destroyed but only in the hands of a supernatural being'. Now over to evolution. firstly evolution is strongly dicredited in the first law of thermodynamics which states (put simply) that 'things go from good to worse' and not the other way round. as pessimestic as this sounds its true.a very basic analogy is to think of iron rusting or people growing old. the logical explantion is that it is energetically unfavourable for things to go from a poor state to a perfect state. so the idea that humans can one day grow wings is just logically unresonable. However i also think that these days evolution is taken way out of its context. for example a mouse which has a change in colour in its fur so that it is more camouflaged with its surroundings does not explain how it got into existence in the first place. i agree to some extent with evolution in that it is just merely an extension of some basic intrinsic 'things' that happen. for example if some one at work is annoying you- most people would either avoid this annoying person or in some exreame cases some people would get a sex change in order to hide their identity from said annoying person( a very extream idea ofcourse). but can this itself then be regarded as evolution of ones needs?? An explantion of this at the molecular level would sugest that once the brain of an annoyed person concouisly recognises the annoying stimulus (annoying person) then some intinsic metabolic activitivies gives rise to some behaviour to neutralise the stimulus. as such the person changes with respect to their environment. Now doesnt this sound like one of the principles of evolution???

has anyone thought of the idea that our whole reality is a deception and that everything we see and make up is only correct within a system of deception so in that form it is a deception also.

i mean we have a universe that exists to us in our minds, because it wouldnt exist if we were deaf, blind, couldnt feel, couldnt taste or smell. In fact you wouldnt even be aware that you were alive if that happened, so the universe is a big deception of the mind, which has taken a form with a set system (like the matrix) and all this arguing over "science", which is a method of explaining this system of deception, is pretty pointless.

btw creationism and the big bang theory seem pretty much the same to me especially with their one huge flaw

were did the stuff that created our universe come from
ie for creationism GOD
for big bang theory- the cosmic dust or whatever it was

Evolution is a theory backed by facts. Do I think there is enough evidence to conclude that we evolved from a common ancestor to an ape? No I do not. I am not going to bash evolutioners, I am just going to hold my breath until the evidence is clear to me.

I am a Christian, but do I believe in creationism? Somewhat. I think creationism is based on a higher history. There could have been another society before us which was destroyed. I think some of the revelations already took place. The beast has been released once again to rule and once that happens the stage will be set for God's next plan.

Originally posted by tankthinker

btw creationism and the big bang theory seem pretty much the same to me especially with their one huge flaw

were did the stuff that created our universe come from
ie for creationism GOD
for big bang theory- the cosmic dust or whatever it was

They seem the same because you have to separate them from each other. Evolution is backed by actual facts, and the big bang is just a theory. Since we have not been advanced for long our search has just begun.

if this 8 mile around particALL accelerator works and creates the heat theorized in the Big Bang Theory then it proves the big bang theory. and also I'm very nonreligious but I'm open minded to the possibility of a creator(s), not like some uber-powerful being per say (god), but it is technically possible to create a big bang through technology which may create another universe, but the partical accelerator is the first step towards something like that. Im saying something intelligent could have created our universe so long ago but then again we could just be a coincidence of nature. But, of course that surfaces more questions no one on Earth could ever answer because WE as a human civilization are just one civilization on one planet in one solar system.

reply to post by Equinox99


Firstly, don't fall in to the 'just a theory' trap because it demonstrates an ignorance to a significant part of science.

A theory is the highest level of factuality that a science can reach. The Theroy of Gravity. General Relativity Theory etc. Only math can go to higher truth with 'proof'. A theory is not a 'guess', it explains all known facts and makes accurate predictions.

But if you're iffy on the humans and todays' living apes sharing a common ancestor, then I have something to show you. (on a side not man IS ape)

nz.youtube.com...

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]

Chick tracts aren't actually true mate. Regurgitating creationist propaganda isn't going to make it any more real.

Originally posted by kegs
Regurgitating creationist propaganda isn't going to make it any more real.

He's right. You wouldn't believe how many people come into these threads with the info that they got from a creationist websites. They come on here thinking they know something about something but it is all strawman arguments. They start posting and we just shred their misunderstandings of evolution.

The creationists websites never teach anything about evolution accurately by any stretch of the imagination. Since they don't teach the theory and then start putting up their arguments against it, all the creationists come away ignorant all the theory and how it works

Originally posted by Good Wolf
reply to post by Equinox99

 

Firstly, don't fall in to the 'just a theory' trap because it demonstrates an ignorance to a significant part of science.

A theory is the highest level of factuality that a science can reach. The Theroy of Gravity. General Relativity Theory etc. Only math can go to higher truth with 'proof'. A theory is not a 'guess', it explains all known facts and makes accurate predictions.

But if you're iffy on the humans and todays' living apes sharing a common ancestor, then I have something to show you. (on a side not man IS ape)

nz.youtube.com...

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]

No. A theory is a intellectual guess, sometimes backed with observations, and sometimes with nothing. They think of it and then try to find facts to back it up. The Big Bang has no facts because we have not recreated it. You can sit here and try to prove the big bang but you don't have nothing to back up your words but the words of another man.

Have you even read the updates about how much DNA we share with Chimps? 6-7%. It is much less then previously thought. IF we were sure of the 96-98% similarities, we could be getting transplants from chimps. Why don't we do that?

Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7 %. There are obvious similarities between
Softpedia

While many evolutionists proclaim that human DNA is 98% identical to chimpanzee DNA, few would lie by idly and allow themselves to receive a transplant using chimpanzee organs. As a matter of fact, American doctors tried using chimp organs in the 1960s, but in all cases the organs were totally unsuitable. The claim of 98% similarity between chimpanzees and humans is not only deceptive and misleading, but also scientifically incorrect. Today, scientists are finding more and more differences in DNA from humans and chimps. For instance, a 2002 research study proved that human DNA was at least 5% different from chimpanzees—and that number probably will continue to grow as we learn all of the details about human DNA (Britten, 2002).
Source

Most human genes have an ancestry that goes back to the earliest animals and are shared in common with other species. Creatures as distant from humans as the fruit fly or roundworm have genes whose DNA sequence is recognizably similar to their human counterparts, as if they were variant spellings of the same word.
Source

For me to believe in evolution you would have to have undeniable proof. A theory is made up of facts and observations. Dawkins stayed on an island for a short while and saw evolution. What he was truly seeing was animals adapting to their surroundings. He did not see a fish growing legs and walking out of the water, he did not see an ape being split into a human and a chimp. So once you see a human born from a chimp you can come and tell me to believe then.



[edit on 19-9-2008 by Equinox99]

Well firstly, "apolgetics express" is not in anyway scientific so it's no good basing you're arguments from there because their site has a tremendous bias. That is why it is called apologetics.

Secondly, you have fallen into the 'theory' trap.

The way of which scientists prove what they find is accurate is the ‘Scientific Method’.

Let’s look at that next:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

Here’s a flowchart.

A theory is not an

intellectual guess

, and it certainly isn't

sometimes backed with observations, and sometimes with nothing

Scientists don't

think of it and then try to find facts to back it up

scientists think up hypotheses after making an observation- which is then falsifiable by tests.

Hypotheses is not equal to theory.

You can sit here and try to prove the big bang but you don't have nothing to back up your words but the words of another man.

By your logic, we can't know anything to any reasonable level. We'd still be stone age farmers making up stories for the beginning of the world at the hands of a deity (because we would not understand processes by which a world could form itself) according to you. Thanks to

the words of another man

you have your computer, and it works. I probably shouldn't resort to strawman arguments like you do but hay, make baseless claims and don't expect people to like you for it.

But for proof of the big bang? Well the universe is expanding from a single point which is indicative of an origin. Then there is the background radiation that reaches us from the beyond 13 billion years ago because of the time it takes to travel. I don't personally understand that one because of my own ignorance, but it's universally accepted by the scientific community as a fact and they'd know better than I do because it's THEORY. Another thing I'll point out, the big bang doesn't cover how all the matter came into existence but what it did when it got here (kinda like evolution does for life). So you can put GOD in that hole in science if you like, I do.

Here's some info on the big bang from a scientific site.

I find this amusing:

Well, the new study concludes that the total DNA variation between humans and chimpanzees is rather 6-7 %.

That means the once held genetic relationship of humans and chimps goes from 98-99% to 93-94%. A 60% variance means difference and by the same token, a 40% similarity.

And why would any one transplant organs from another species? This is a silly idea because transplant from human to human is dubious and incredibly difficult by itself. But if you are interested trans-species-ectemy "The Animal" style (starring Rob Shnider) then you should know that surgeons have been transplanting heart valves from pigs for a long time now, successfully.

And lastly. Dawkins.

Dawkins stayed on an island for a short while and saw evolution

I fail to remember when Dawkins went to an island and observed anything. I believe that you are thinking of Darwin but it doesn't matter.

What he was truly seeing was animals adapting to their surroundings.

Which is a process of evolution called Natural Selection, so you have to agree with that part rather than writing the whole thing off.

He did not see a fish growing legs and walking out of the water

evolution doesn't predict that that will happen, but funnily enough there is a fish that will leave the water and doesn't even need legs.

he did not see an ape being split into a human and a chimp

humans and chimps are apes, but anyway there wasn't any apes on the island anyway (apart from Darwin and the other me who weren't staying).

So once you see a human born from a chimp you can come and tell me to believe then

I'm gonna come runing ato you and shout "Hey, come see the freak chip!" because evolution doesn't predict that, this is the same tired strawman argument that is used by creationists all the time. Evolution would not even tolerate this! You already must agree with the

adaptation

speciation part of evolution, if you perhaps learnt that scientists have documented new species emerging out of old ones like the subway mosquito in england, you may be aware that evolution works.

But a creationist would say, "but that's not one animal turning into a different kind of animal!" But creationists refuse to define what kind means so we can't know it the above statement is true. What we do know is that one species will turn into a different species over a long enough time in a process called speciation. Another example of this is the flu, you get an immunity to it and it changes. This is also why medicine practitioners are worried about antibiotics and how they are becoming less and less affective over time- because things are changing over time. There was recently a type of germ found in a dumpster that can eat nylon. Nylon hasn't been around for that long, so this has to be speciation through mutation. And you thought all mutations were bad (at least that's my hypothesis because that's what creationists say and you seem to have fallen under the power of their propaganda).

The fossil record 'records' what happens after thousands of speciations occur. If after one speciation, species 0000001 is a little different from species 0000002, then imagine how greatly differnt species 0000001 would be from species 9667671! That's how evolution works- cumulative changes over a great amount of time.

[edit on 9/19/2008 by Good Wolf]