disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[justme007]

Another thing that I thought about for a long time, something about the way natural processes are:

If something solidifies, something that was produced as a result of a natural process, that something is "one whole piece". Think rocks, iron, clay, ice, everything. All of the above tends to either be "one whole piece" or disjoint and disconnected. 

Now, every single cell consists of many components that are different in shape, size, molecules they are made of, etc. All of the above is encased into one container - the cell wall. ...

I wad just blessed with being able to see that in my imagination PRAISE THE LORD FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Statement(maybe an axiom): one region of space, let's say spherical. That region of space "totally contains" another, smaller region of space. Let's say that the larger region of space is filled with something that has been formed naturally, let's say rocks, metal, anything, even concrete, rubber, if it were to spill unintentionally for example. If such two regions were to exist inside any of the above, let's say inside a piece of rubber, the assumption would be that if the border of the larger region consists of rubber, then the inside smaller region is also made of rubber. If it is mixed with something, let's say a piece of glass, then the rubber is "stuck" to it so that they are still joined as "one piece". 

I'm not good at writing formal statements, I hope the example helps. 

And if a little drop of any of the above were to separate as a result of some natural process, it would be "one piece" and immobile. That is the nature of the world around us. 

And then again, how and why would it separate? Liquids form solids. Liquids stay together as one because of the strong or weak forces, solids, once formed stay as one as a result of the same strong or weak forces. Middle school physics. Once we encounter something like a key in a lock we know that it is not formed naturally. If it were formed naturally it would be one whole piece!

A cell contains a cell wall - one whole piece - and a lot of different things that move within it!

If it were to be formed naturally it would be one whole piece! It would not have different organelles!

And if two things are disjoint in nature they will never be one whole thing, because of the 3 Newton's laws!

[Xethea]

On 4/4/2019 at 9:12 AM, one.opinion said:

It is not possible to prove (exhibit beyond any doubt) anything with text. Personally, I choose to place my faith in a holy God as Creator and what He reveals through His Word - I am a sinner and in need of His saving grace through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In one sense, I am a creationist (I absolutely believe in a Creator), but that does not preclude the possibility that God created life using evolution as a tool. Believing in creation does not require disbelieving evolution - only an atheistic version of it.

If you know God is God, and He is who He claims to be, and you know what His word says is ALWAYS true, that the prophecies have always come true even when they were given hundreds to even thousands of years and still to come to us, they have been fulfilled, and that is proof, and you know it will be proof to us as well when we come before Him. I know it is proof, because I know my God has PROVEN HIMSELF WORTHY AND TRUE. Deny that, and you deny God and His word, not me.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Xethea

[Leyla]

The only way to disprove Evolution, or the Theory of evolution is to find dead animals in a time period in which they dont belong, for example modern rabbits in the dinosaur age. Such a thing never happened, so the only way to disprove it was not found yet.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Leyla
Mistype

[Takoda]

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. ~~~ Todd Woods

Whenever I see a poster talk about theories being proven or unproven, I know immediately that the poster knows next to nothing about science and how science works. Theories are models about how something works based on a great deal of observation and much testing. However, theories are always tentative and provisional in that it is never possible to have all the evidence. It is always possible that new evidence will require that the theory be modified, or in some cases, discarded completely. The history of science is filled with examples of this. The word 'proof' simply does not apply in science the way it does in logic or in mathematics. What then can we say about evolution? We know from observation that evolution is a fact --- life on this planet has changed dramatically over time and that change continues even today. That fact cannot be argued. But what drives that change? How exactly does it work? That is where the theory of evolution comes in. However, this being said, it is possible to disprove the theory of evolution. All that would be needed are solid facts. That has not happened in the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory.

[Guest]

On 4/8/2019 at 4:10 AM, Leyla said:

The only way to disprove Evolution, or the Theory of evolution is to find dead animals in a time period in which they dont belong, for example modern rabbits in the dinosaur age. Such a thing never happened, so the only way to disprove it was not found yet.

I don't know if that's the only way, but it would force a modification of the theory.  I believe science itself disproves the theory of evolution because it points to a Creator.

[one.opinion]

18 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I believe science itself disproves the theory of evolution because it points to a Creator.

As you and I have discussed, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

[ARGOSY]

On 4/8/2019 at 10:10 AM, Leyla said:

The only way to disprove Evolution, or the Theory of evolution is to find dead animals in a time period in which they dont belong, for example modern rabbits in the dinosaur age. Such a thing never happened, so the only way to disprove it was not found yet.

I hear you on the evidence needed to disprove evolution.

From the perspective of observed phenomenon, creationism is preferable, even if not provable.

We observe the sudden appearance of organisms in the late Ediacaran and early Cambrian.  We observe species moving out of niche locations and expanding into territories where conditions change. Many of these radiations of species are from Siberia, which seems to be an original haven of life-forms. 

 With this as the observed phenomenon, the evidence favors the sudden appearance of multiple species, then species radiating out of Siberia and later from Turkey. This is observed in the fossil record, rather than the non-observed phenomenon of species evolving outside of their clades. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by ARGOSY

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

 With this as the observed phenomenon, the evidence favors the sudden appearance of multiple species, then species radiating out of Siberia and later from Turkey. This is observed in the fossil record, rather than the non-observed phenomenon of species evolving outside of their clades. 

If we take "sudden" to mean a span of 50 million years, sure, but I don't think that really qualifies as "sudden". Does the evidence supporting species radiating out of Siberia and Turkey indicated that this was done within the last 6,000 years? If so, what evidence would you use to support this hypothesis?

[ARGOSY]

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If we take "sudden" to mean a span of 50 million years, sure, but I don't think that really qualifies as "sudden". Does the evidence supporting species radiating out of Siberia and Turkey indicated that this was done within the last 6,000 years? If so, what evidence would you use to support this hypothesis?

Regarding your timeframes, Purdue University detected fluctuating decay rates in short life isotopes during solar flares. The decay rates were previously thought of as a constant. 

To what extent does this instability in the decay rate of short life isotopes, also affect long life isotopes, and would the magnetic field strength fluctuations have an effect on this too?

[one.opinion]

43 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Regarding your timeframes, Purdue University detected fluctuating decay rates in short life isotopes during solar flares. The decay rates were previously thought of as a constant.

The fluctuations were minimal and not in any of the isotopes used for isochronic dating.

45 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

and would the magnetic field strength fluctuations have an effect on this too?

Please provide any supporting evidence of this hypothesis.