Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[David1701]

9 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Let me check for accuracy here. Are your two biggest scientific objections to evolution as follows?

1. Which came first, blood or blood vessels?

2. Cats haven’t evolved into dogs, or vice versa.

For the latter, please scientifically explain why you and your cousin are not clones of each other. I think you should be able to address your own objection.

1. No

2. No

Quote

For the latter, please scientifically explain why you and your cousin are not clones of each other. I think you should be able to address your own objection.

What are you talking about?  Why on earth would my cousin and I be clones?  What does this have to do with alleged evolution, from one kind to another, over millions of years?

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, David1701 said:

What are you talking about?  Why on earth would my cousin and I be clones?

The answer will reveal why dogs haven’t evolved into cats, or vice versa.

3 minutes ago, David1701 said:

1. No

2. No

Oh, it would be great to discuss actual scientific objections. Perhaps you could bring some up?

[David1701]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

The answer will reveal why dogs haven’t evolved into cats, or vice versa.

 

Then please explain.  This should be interesting...

Quote

Oh, it would be great to discuss actual scientific objections. Perhaps you could bring some up?

I'm rather half-hearted about this, for the simple reason that the data are common to both sides.  It's the interpretations that differ.  Each side will always come up with some kind of interpretation that supports its position, so no-one will get anywhere.  Another factor is that many of the interpretations are highly technical and most people won't have the knowledge required, to tell whether or not they are correct, if a definitive answer is even possible, purely based on present-day scientific knowledge.

The most important objections to evolution are biblical.

Alright, here's one objection (there are many): the moon is required for tides, etc..  The moon is receding from the Earth, at a known rate (about 1.5 inches per year).  This rate would have been faster, when the moon was closer to the Earth; but, if it were too close, then the gravitational forces would have been absolutely catastrophic.  This does not allow nearly enough time for evolution to have taken place.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, David1701 said:

Then please explain.  This should be interesting...

I'm trying some Socratic method here. Why are you and your cousin not clones of each other?

2 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I'm rather half-hearted about this, for the simple reason that the data are common to both sides.  It's the interpretations that differ.

Ok, then please follow up with some interpretations of the data that you think mainstream scientists get wrong.

4 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Alright, here's one objection (there are many): the moon is required for tides, etc.. 

You claim there are many objections here. Yet all you have mentioned in this entire thread are blood/blood vessel dilemma (which you have stated isn't an argument you would used in the future), and cats/dogs not evolving into one another - despite any explanation of why they should be expected to evolve into each other.

So your next objection to the theory of evolution is about the moon - which sidesteps the theory of evolution altogether.

For the sake of being thorough, let's address this.

29 minutes ago, David1701 said:

The moon is receding from the Earth, at a known rate (about 1.5 inches per year). 

True.

30 minutes ago, David1701 said:

then the gravitational forces would have been absolutely catastrophic. 

Pure conjecture. Although the origin of the moon does seem to certainly have involved some catastrophe - https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/how-did-the-moon-form.html

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Josheb said:

What is the scientific evidence against this?

You seem to be missing my earlier point. Scientific evidence does NOT preclude these possibilities. These two hypotheses are consistent with our current scientific evidence.

 

5 minutes ago, Josheb said:

How does someone scientifically reach a conclusion without evidence?

The RATE project concluded that radioactive decay rates must have differed by orders of magnitude in the past, but this conclusion is completely unsupported by the available scientific evidence. So this is my exact question for the RATE project.

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

if the earth was once a molten bubbling ball covered in blue algae and an atmosphere completely different than the one we now have how is it thought decay rates of anything are constant?

There is some interesting research that has been done on the effects of temperature on radioactive decay rates, and the results are mixed. Nowhere in any of this research is the suggestion that decay rates could be affected by orders of magnitude.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2009/10/27/208571/do-nuclear-decay-rates-depend-on-temperature/

[one.opinion]

36 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Have you ever read Francis Schaeffer's trilogy? I think you might enjoy it because he's addressing the false dichotomy between revelation and science. 

Forgot to address this - I've read some of "How Then Should We Live", but that's it from Schaeffer.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Josheb said:

So where is the Christian discussion of the scientific evidence not precluding these possibilites? 

I'm not understanding your point here. My intention in this thread was to address claims that I'd read repeatedly in other threads that there were scientific problems with the theory of evolution. Thus, I'm attempting to focus the content (with marginal success, at best) on those.

7 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Is contamination, for example, a real occurrence and a legitimate concern?

Yes, of course contamination is a legitimate concern. That's why scientists do not base age estimates on a single evidence point. Frequently, when radiometric dating is performed, multiple isotope pairs are used to help confirm results.

9 minutes ago, Josheb said:

So the rates may very but not in orders of magnitude? The seems hair-splitting, imo.

Did you look at the link? Imagine I am using a tape measure to check the length of a wall in my house. Under really weird circumstances (maybe my tape measure folded on itself) the length of the wall is actually 21 feet instead of 20. However, someone else claims that instead of 20 feet, the distance is actually 9 microns (about the diameter of a red blood cell), and not 20 feet. This person insists this must be true, but has no evidence to support their hypothesis that the wall is only 9 microns long. Does this still sound like hair-splitting to you? This is a very good estimate of the degree of change that would be necessary for 4.5 billion years to be compressed into 6,000 years.

21 minutes ago, Josheb said:

If we have evidence of variability the carbon dating is questionable.

Carbon-14 has a much shorter half-life than the isotopes used for rock sampling. Wrong tool for the job and also without supporting evidence.

20 minutes ago, Josheb said:

I recommend the trilogy, especially if you're a Christian. Your profile says you're in the US. I'll mail you a copy (send it general delivery) if you'll promise to read it. 

I appreciate it, but no, thank you. I have a stack of books I intend to read once life-after-pandemic returns closer to normal again.

Since I am constantly trying to refocus the OP, I will ask - are there scientific problems with the theory of evolution that you would like to discuss?

[Guest theElect777]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Reel is back in, friend. Please respect civil discourse enough to remain somewhere close to the OP.

You have said you know of problems in the science of evolution. You haven’t brought up a single one in the entire 12 page thread.

Please - do you or do you not have examples that back up your claim?

Science itself as a general statement claims that even if there is proof against Evolution it does not lead to proof of Intelligent Design.   You have even said yourself that Intelligent Design is "bunk," which removes the aspect of a Creator.   From your own posts, I don't see how you can claim to believe in God.   You specifically have used examples of Scripture to show flaws but we are not allowed to address you by them.

 

Bottom line is there are only a few arguments against Evolution.   And they really are not opposing Evolution, but addressing issues within the Theory.   Therefore, Science does not oppose Evolution but rather embraces it intellectually as a Gospel.   The real issue is for someone like YOU to prove Evolution fits into the Word of God.

Edited August 15, 2020 by theElect777

[Marathoner]

I'll answer some of the issues I've seen cropping up over the last few pages. Planetary evolution (i.e., the geological history of the Earth) is a different subject supported by geological evidence. 

At no time was the Earth a "molten bubbling ball covered in blue algae" according to scientific consensus. During the Hadean Eon, the Earth's crust was molten due to extreme volcanism and frequent bombardment by extraterrestrial bodies. This eon is recognized from the oldest zircons extracted from the crust which are 4.4 billion years in age. Current theory stipulates the Moon was formed from the Earth during the Hadean, the catastrophic result of a planet-sized body impacting our world. Recent analysis of lunar rocks supports this theory: rocks from the Earth and the Moon are similar in age and composition. 

The release of gases and intense volcanic activity formed the primordial atmosphere during the Hadean. The convection of the Earth's mantle coupled with extreme volcanism (molten lava) prevented widespread cooling of the crust so "blue algae" couldn't have existed nor survived during the Hadean. To our sensibilities the Earth was a fiery hell, thus the "Hadean" Eon.

The earliest form of life, the cyanobacteria, appeared approximately 3.7 billion years ago during the following Eon, called the Archean. The crust cooled, the convection of the mantle significantly decreased, and water began accumulating on the Earth's surface. Evidence of the earliest cyanobacteria have been confirmed in structures formed in shallow water by microbial mats called stromatolites. These fossilized over time; the oldest stromatolite discovered is 3.7 billion years in age. Cyanobacteria generate cellular energy via photosynthesis; gaseous oxygen is a byproduct of this process. Water has been detected in cometary bodies and other extraterrestrial objects and so it is thought to have arrived on Earth during the intense bombardments typical of the late Hadean and early Archean. 

Life appeared very early in the history of our world.   


 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Marathoner

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, theElect777 said:

You have even said yourself that Intelligent Design is "bunk,"

No, I said the "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" is propaganda - and I stand by that. There are certain aspects of Intelligent Design that I completely agree with. I believe the variety of life we see today is best explained by the existence of an Intelligent Designer (I will go so far as to claim that Intelligent Designer is God). I just happen to accept that the Intelligent Designer used evolution as a tool for His creative purposes.

 

4 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

 From your own posts I don't see how you can claim to believe in God.   You specifically have used examples of Scripture to show flaws but we are not allowed to address you by them.

Then start your own thread and invite me to participate. I don't understand why staying on topic is so difficult.

5 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Bottom line is there are only a few arguments against Evolution. 

If there are a few arguments, it would be great if you mentioned some of them.

13 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

 The real issue is for someone like YOU to prove Evolution fits into the Word of God.

MOST of my threads here lean much more into the philosophical and theological.

I cannot prove to you what I believe and accept. I can explain why I believe it, but if you are waiting for me to supply proof, you are going to be waiting for quite a while.

All I want from this thread is a discussion on the problems that you and other have claimed to exist.