Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Guest theElect777]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

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.

 

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

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

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.

Missing Links are the general reason.  I have mentioned this 3 times now and posted articles based upon it.   But I have also posted where Science is still under the belief that Evolution is indeed a Theory.   So there are no real objections to Evolution from the viewpoint of Science.   Do you have objections to Evolution as a Biologist?

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Josheb said:

How do you expect to do that without attending to the evidence precluding certain conditions?

This is completely nebulous. What evidence? What conditions? Where is the perceived problem here? You are expecting me to address them, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

10 minutes ago, Josheb said:

how do you plan to to do that without attending to the Christians attending to the precluding evidence?

This is my plan, should anyone present any.

 

10 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Then the earlier claim the conclusions were made absent evidence is incorrect. 

My claim, that I have made twice now, is that the RATE conclusion (that radioactive decay rates have varied by orders of magnitude in the past) is baseless. Why are you intentionally misrepresenting what I have said?

19 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Did you read my post because the analogy you've just provided is irrelevant to what I posted. 

The analogy directly addresses your assertion of "hair-splitting".

22 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Is organic material a source of carbon found in rocks?

Carbon dating is not used to estimate rock formation dates. It is performed on organic samples.

[one.opinion]

18 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Missing Links are the general reason.  I have mentioned this 3 times now and posted articles based upon it.

Both @Marathoner and I have addressed this.

 

19 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

So there are no real objections to Evolution from the viewpoint of Science.

Agreed. To follow, we should not make claims to the contrary.

20 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Do you have objections to Evolution as a Biologist?

I have objections to the mainstream thought on abiogenesis, but not evolution. There are many questions about evolution, but nothing regarding evolution that would qualify (in my mind) as objection.

I do have theological objections to evolution. Namely, that humans are nothing more than physical beings. I believe the "image of God" pertains to that part of humanity that is NOT physical.

[Marathoner]

16 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Next time I'll include a winking emoticon so the rhetorical nature of the comment does not escape the reader. 

Is there any evidence any of this could have had an effect on the decay rate of carbon one way or another?

That would be appreciated, @Josheb, considering the subject matter of this topic.  

To answer the question posed above, not to any appreciable degree. Radiometric dating techniques measure the radioactive decay of constituent elements such as carbon, potassium, or argon; in the case of organic material the carbon 14 isotope is measured (hence "carbon 14 dating"). Another technique measures the thermoluminescence exhibited by certain crystalline minerals when they're heated, a luminescence related to exposure from electromagnetic and ionizing radiation. It's important to note thermoluminescence is distinct from exposure to other sources of background radiation commonly referred to as 'black-body radiation."

In many ways this dating technique is superior to earlier methods of radiometric dating but its application is limited to crystalline minerals. Fossils and rocks may be dated using a wide variety of dating techniques but non-fossilized organic material cannot, hence why the carbon 14 isotope is relied upon. As you're probably aware that technique has its limitations. 

[Marathoner]

I've pointed this out a few times and it bears repeating again: the physical sciences deal with empirical evidence which is to say that which we may observe, measure, test and subsequently quantify. Couched differently, the physical sciences are concerned with examining God's creation. Acceptance of this evidence in no way runs counter to the faith which was delivered once and for all. In truth we are the ones who create the issues surrounding such matters... for example, stating that a rock is 4 billion years old is just that: it's 4 billion years old. The source of conflict is revealed in how one interprets certain passages from Genesis. That a rock is 4 billion years old doesn't dispute the truth that the Son of God created everything from nothing. Accepting the evidence of evolution doesn't deny our Creator nor imply that "abiogenesis" is embraced.

From listening to my brothers and sisters I've discovered that quite a few don't properly understand the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution; this theory is supported by genetic evidence. Again, examining the minutiae of God's creation has no bearing upon our faith. This is a phantom extinction driven by decades of misinformation and a lack of understanding, a collision of the traditions of men. 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by Marathoner

[David1701]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

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

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

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.

True.

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

I've only mentioned a couple of objections because, as I've said, this isn't usually a very profitable type of discussion.

I didn't say that cats and dogs would be expected to evolve into each other!  I said that, if the suppositions behind evolution were true, then it would be possible for this to happen, if there were millions of years available.  You claimed that it's impossible, without giving any evidence for your claim, except to ask me why I and my cousin are not clones, which is a very strange question.

No two human beings are genetically identical (except identical twins), because of the huge variations inherent in human DNA.  Cloning does not happen naturally and cloning humans is illegal.

The age of the moon is very relevant, because, as I mentioned, the suppositions behind evolution need enormous amounts of time, to have even the slightest chance of happening.  Given that the presence of the moon is absolutely required for life on this planet (otherwise all the water would become stagnant, amongst other things), then its age becomes a determining factor in whether or not evolution is scientifically possible.

How can you say that it's "pure conjecture" that, if the moon were too close to the Earth, then the gravitational forces would be catastrophic?  It's hard to see how someone could reasonably object to this statement, without looking ridiculous.

[Marathoner]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

Both @Marathoner and I have addressed this.

 

Agreed. To follow, we should not make claims to the contrary.

I have objections to the mainstream thought on abiogenesis, but not evolution. There are many questions about evolution, but nothing regarding evolution that would qualify (in my mind) as objection.

I do have theological objections to evolution. Namely, that humans are nothing more than physical beings. I believe the "image of God" pertains to that part of humanity that is NOT physical.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, brother. When I shared the image of our skull next to a Neanderthal skull, I wanted to illustrate how remarkably different we are from the empirical angle. In fact, we are singularly unique in time and space because we're the only ones on Earth who seek the Lord. I insist this is because Jesus Christ (Yeshua), the Word of God, created US in the image of God. This image is not dependent upon our material being. Is it not written that God is Spirit and we are to worship Him in spirit and truth?

[Marathoner]

33 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I've only mentioned a couple of objections because, as I've said, this isn't usually a very profitable type of discussion.

I agree with you, brother. The minute details of how our Lord created everything is not important. If it were then I'm confident the apostles would have preached such things in the Gospel. We know the truth: our Father so loved the world that He sent His Son, the Word made flesh, so whomever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. In the topic @one.opinion started previous to this one I shared my understanding that we're accustomed to encountering atheists, deniers, and scoffers who attempt to wield science as a weapon against our faith. As the apostle Paul wrote the creation cannot (and does not) deny the Creator! We know the Lord created all things and that the book of Genesis foretold of our Father's plan of redemption, the Word made flesh. 

I'm thinking it would be more profitable to answer whatever questions my brothers and sisters may have regarding evolutionary theory and the science involved therein, which is why I decided to frequent this part of the forums and become involved in this topic. You are far more important than my education in the sciences, brother. I'm glad to share what I know.  

Edited August 15, 2020 by Marathoner
typos

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I didn't say that cats and dogs would be expected to evolve into each other!

This is what you actually did say:

Quote

If evolution were correct, then there is no reason why cats should not gradually evolve into dogs, or vice versa.

 

10 minutes ago, David1701 said:

You claimed that it's impossible

This is what I actually did say:

Quote

Could you explain your reasoning and why a cat should evolve into a dog, or vice verse? That makes zero sense from a scientific standpoint.

Now that we can see what was actually stated, I think we can move on.

15 minutes ago, David1701 said:

except to ask me why I and my cousin are not clones, which is a very strange question.

No two human beings are genetically identical (except identical twins), because of the huge variations inherent in human DNA.  Cloning does not happen naturally and cloning humans is illegal.

By "clone", what I meant was an identical genetic copy. I should have been more clear. You are getting close to the point I was hoping you would get to. Yes, there are genetic differences that occur from one generation to the next. The same thing happens on a population level. Gene pools also diverge from one generation to the next. If we go back far enough into the (suspected) family tree, cats and dogs would have a common ancestor. There is substantial variation in the respective gene pools that accumulated and eventually led to (hypothetically) modern cat and dog populations. The expectation that one of these populations would somehow bypass all those of accumulated variations and "evolve into" the other is just as far-fetched (and for the same reason - accumulated variation through generations) as you and your cousin having identical DNA.

27 minutes ago, David1701 said:

The age of the moon is very relevant

This is a side issue, but feel free to check out the link I posted earlier.

29 minutes ago, David1701 said:

How can you say that it's "pure conjecture" that, if the moon were too close to the Earth, then the gravitational forces would be catastrophic?

Do you think that a moon 100,000 miles closer to the earth would be as catastrophic as a collision with something roughly the size of Mars? I have no doubt that a closer moon would drastically change the ecology of the earth. However, it is a stretch to use a closer moon as any sort of proof that evolution could not have occurred. That is the part that is purely conjecture - meaning there is zero evidence to back up the claim.

[David1701]

41 minutes ago, Marathoner said:

I agree with you, brother. The minute details of how our Lord created everything is not important. If it were then I'm confident the apostles would have preached such things in the Gospel. We know the truth: our Father so loved the world that He sent His Son, the Word made flesh, so whomever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. In the topic @one.opinion started previous to this one I shared my understanding that we're accustomed to encountering atheists, deniers, and scoffers who attempt to wield science as a weapon against our faith. As the apostle Paul wrote the creation cannot (and does not) deny the Creator! We know the Lord created all things and that the book of Genesis foretold of our Father's plan of redemption, the Word made flesh. 

I'm thinking it would be more profitable to answer whatever questions my brothers and sisters may have regarding evolutionary theory and the science involved therein, which is why I decided to frequent this part of the forums and become involved in this topic. You are far more important than my education in the sciences, brother. I'm glad to share what I know.  

I completely disagree with evolutionary suppositions; but I like your post in general.