In the Right

bootylover333:

in-the-right:

bootylover333:

in-the-right:

thisblogisforcallingoutassholes:

[snip]

LOL, are you serious? Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not facts! They haven’t even come close to being proven. And did you see that one word? “Theory”? Theory means it’s not a fact. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theory. I can’t just tell you “The universe is actually contained inside a marble that was placed in a jar by aliens. It is a fact unless you can disprove it!” Doesn’t work that way, darlin’.

99% of scientists agree but the 1% that don’t are automatically more credible? Spoken like a true blind Christian.

A large amount (not 99% because I’m sure that is not a real statistic you’ve looked up because you can’t take a census of all scientists’ opinions) of scientists think the universe was created without God somehow, but other scientists disagree. The number of people believing something does not make it true. Explain why Galileo was forced to recant his theory that the earth revolved around the sun, because people of his day all agreed that it didn’t.

Also, nobody here was arguing natural selection?? Natural selection states that the fittest of a species will survive. Yeah, so? That’s not evolution, and it certainly isn’t the Big Bang Theory.

Ignoring that evolution is not a fact makes your standpoint ignorant. And ignoring what we are and are not arguing makes your statement about natural selection ignorant.

Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are not facts! They haven’t even come close to being proven.

…No, Evolution totally has.  It’s not just that there’s mountains of evidence that support it, we have actually observed evolution happening.

And did you see that one word? “Theory”? Theory means it’s not a fact. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the theory.

Are you not aware of the scientific definition of “theory”?  You’re a nursing student, so I’d assume you cracked open an introductory science (chemistry, maybe physics etc.) textbook at some point.  Somewhere near the beginning, it should have explained the scientific method, the testing and re-testing of a hypothesis to accumulate evidence and support.  If a hypothesis gathers enough evidence after being tested and confirmed numerous times, it becomes a theory.  To quote the National Academy of Sciences: “The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.”  Evolution has been proved, and proved again, and again, many times over.  Predictions based on the theory have borne out in reality, and as I said above, it has been observed in reality.  Theory doesn’t mean it’s not a fact.  Theory means that it’s a scientific truth that has never yet been disproven

Explain why Galileo was forced to recant his theory that the earth revolved around the sun, because people of his day all agreed that it didn’t.

Okay that’s easy!  The Catholic Church had declared that “the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were ‘false’ and ‘altogether contrary to Holy Scripture’”, because of passages like Psalms 104:5.  The Church dragged him to Rome, put him on trial, and found him “vehemently suspect of heresy” becausehis scientific views didn’t agree with what it said in the Bible. 

So yeah, if that much evidence doesn’t “prove” evolution, in your eyes, I’m wondering what would?  I cribbed some of this from here, if you’re interested in reading more.  There’s a pretty strong anti-religion bias in that though, just so you’re forewarned.  I didn’t talk about the Big Bang as much because I’m less versed in that, but I’m sure I can dig up plenty of stuff in support of that too.

…No, Evolution totally has.  It’s not just that there’s mountains of evidence that support it, we have actually observed evolution happening.

Did that E. coli change species? No, it didn’t. Therefore, it is not an example of evolution according to the theory of evolution. Macro-evolution (the gradual change from one species to another) is the mechanism in the theory of evolution and has never been observed. Micro-evolution involves mutations within the same species, has been observed, and nobody has any problem with it. Micro-evolution absolutely does not necessitate macro-evolution.

I think the entire rest of my response is contained in these two posts. Let me know if you have any remaining questions.

Micro-evolution involves mutations within the same species, has been observed, and nobody has any problem with it.

So you’re saying that a species can mutate, and some of those mutations can be beneficial and spread to the entire population of that species?  Because that’s what the experiment shows, and you don’t have any problem with it.

Actually, the Theory of Natural Selection contradicts evolution. The percentage of positive DNA mutations in living things is tiny. Therefore, nearly anything that has a mutation at all would have a negative one, that makes them less fit to survive. They would die off, and the non-mutated versions would be naturally selected to procreate.

Oh wait, you do have a problem with it?  Do you accept the observations of the experiment or don’t you?  Does micro-evolution exist or not?

Furthermore, do you even understand how many protein, DNA, and cellular mutations have to occur successfully, at the same time, for an organism to develop a new working eye (a non-working or incomplete eye is a negative mutation and will not survive natural selection)?

An organism doesn’t have to develop a working eye, it just has to develop a photoreceptor cell or two.  If it lives in an environment where knowing if there’s light or not is useful, that will stick around, and further mutations can result in more, or more sensitive ones, assuming they provide a benefit in the environment.  A mutation that recesses those cells into an organism’s skin would provide better directional sensitivity…. you don’t need the whole lesson, suffice that you can develop an eye one useful mutation at a time.

Therefore, your belief in how the universe was created requires as much faith as creationism.

No, I don’t have “faith” in how the universe was created.  I believe the scientific explanation for how the universe was created, because it matches all the date we currently have.  If a repeatable experiment turns up a new data point that doesn’t fit the theory, then it’s back to the drawing board:  either the Big Bang Theory gets modified to fit the data point, or tossed out entirely and someone bangs out a new one that fits all the old data and this too.  Science is always a work in progress.

They have also had a hypothesis that a  certain layer of rock is a certain age. From that layer of rock, they find a fossil. Relying on their hypothesis, they say the fossil is a certain age because it comes from the rock that is the age they hypothesize. They then proceed to date every single fossil based on their assumption, and then date other layers of rock based on their assumed age of the fossil. It’s circular reasoning.

Carbon Dating, anyone?  A major point of criticism that I’ve found seems to be that “It is assumed that the ratio of ¹⁴C to ¹²C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion)” or “for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere.“  Carbon measurements have to be calibrated because of varying levels of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere throughout history, so that’s out.  Most of the other criticisms on those pages just aren’t factually correct, but I can pick them apart further if you need me to.

Except what happens in reality is that scientists who don’t agree with the “mainstream” theories, especially the Big Bang and evolution, don’t get funded.

Except when they do, and then their experiments are flawed and unable to be published in any scientific journals.

Atheist evolutionists and big bang theorists disregard anything supernatural in their theory.

What happened before the big bang?  We just don’t know.  Nobody knows, and it’s pretty much impossible to test.  Believe whatever you want, because science can’t help you here.

Something cannot and has never naturally come from nothing, according to the laws of physics. So how did the first bit of material that caused the big bang get there?

The laws of physics likely didn’t exist before the universe.  I mean, they might have, but there’s no evidence of that, and it doesn’t make logical sense.

It cannot naturally come from nothing. Therefore, however it got there is supernatural.

Hey in that sense, you’re right.  Anything that took place before the naturaluniverse existed is by definition supernatural, how about that.  “Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe”, and the visible observable universe didn’t exist before the big bang.  That doesn’t mean a god was involved, it means that we don’t know what the f*ck was involved other than not necessarily the immutable laws of nature.

Alright. So the Big Bang Theory has been debunked because something cannot naturally come from nothing. You know what theory would include the possibility of the first existing thing being supernatural? Creationism.

A) No it hasn’t, because natural laws don’t necessarily apply before the Big Bang.
B) Alright, you want to go ahead and empirically test Creationism, then?  Be my guest.

The mechanism of evolution is not needed to explain things and relying on it requires faith.

Of course it’s not needed to explain everything, and that show may well have been using it wrong.  But again, relying on it just requires belief of the evidence, not faith that it’s true despite evidence otherwise.

Hey, if God created the world through evolution, that’s great! Perfectly fine.

Well if you believe in God, you’re gonna have to accept that that’s what he did.

Useful mutations are extremely rare. You cannot refute this. It’s proven.

Yup!  That why evolution takes as long as it does.  Useful mutations show up very infrequently, so it takes ages for a species with any reasonable lifespan to change at all.

All other mutations are deleterious, and natural selection kills them off.

I’m sure there’s some mutations that don’t really make a huge difference at all that can stick around, but yeah, natural selection will weed out the negative ones.

Considering I looked at your About Me and saw you are a cis male, I find it absolutely hilarious that you presume to know all about trans issues while saying I don’t because I’m cis!

But… they don’t say you don’t know about trans* issues because you’re cis, they’re saying you’re ignorant about trans* issues because of your very public opinions about trans* issues.  You have made many posts about them.

Anything that appeared out of nothing (or always existed with no creator) is supernatural. Whatever that is is God.

Gonna agree with the first, but just because we don’t know or understand something doesn’t make it God.  Heck, people worshiped the Sun because they didn’t understand it and it was impressive, didn’t make it God.

Also, there is scientific evidence that suggest the universe is running down. Eventually, matter and energy will dissipate in a homogeneous soup across the universe. If the universe is billions of years old (or older), this would have already happened.

…So I’m cooking some toast.  If I leave it in the oven for too long, it will disintegrate into ash.  Since it’s been cooking for 5 minutes, clearly it has already disintegrated into ash right?  That or I’m lying and it’s only been cooking for 2 minutes.  Just because the universe /will/ wind down, doesn’t mean it would have wound down already if it weren’t shiny and new.

The Bible has proven itself credible. It has proven historically accurate every time it was tested. It has successfully predicted many things.

Well of course it’s historically accurate, it was written during those times in history.  Most of what we know about the early history of some regions is even based on it, because it’s the only book that survived this long.  That doesn’t mean the non-history parts of it are any more credible than any other holy book.  Not saying you can’t believe them, just that they don’t have supporting evidence like the history bits.  What has it successfully predicted, though?  The one that springs to mind most immediately is the Second Coming/Rapture/Armageddon, and I’m fairly certain that hasn’t happened yet.  What are some of the others?

Well, that sure is out of left field. I guess you don’t understand genetic diversity. Adam and Eve’s reproductive haploid cells contained all the possible genetic traits of the entire human race. Their offspring was more diverse than any who came after them because the possibilities keep being limited further with each generation.

You’re going to need to explain this one to me; did they have more chromosomes than modern humans?  If they did, why did that number diminish to modern levels, but stop there?  If not, then what the heck are you saying?

Chew on that.

I am, but I’m pretty sure I’m going to spit rather than swallow.

Sorry for replying to this so late. I’m actually still catching up on replying to everyone I want to reply to, and it’s been a bit disorganized.

As for the catastrophic holes in the theory of evolution/big bang and the fallacy in having unquestioning faith in one group of scientists, I think my last ask replies to you covered this. I’d love to hear your input, though, if you feel so inclined.

Oh wait, you do have a problem with it?  Do you accept the observations of the experiment or don’t you?  Does micro-evolution exist or not?

I’m sorry, I must not have explained myself well. …And I was going to try again, with actual statistics this time, but as I was looking up the statistics, I found an essay that explains my entire point as well as I could. The most basic of the three points was actually a new fact to me, lol. So here are 3 reasons why mutations cannot have caused evolution. It’s slightly long, but I’m pretty sure you can read some of each point and still get the gist, if you’re short on free time.

Sneak peek:

1. “The mathematical problem for evolution comes when you want a series of related mutations.”

2. “Mutations are ‘going the wrong way’ as far as evolution is concerned.”

3. “Mutations are only changes in genes that already exist.”

Carbon measurements have to be calibrated because of varying levels of 14C in the atmosphere throughout history, so that’s out.

Okay, so… Since we both know of this… What is the reliable dating method on which evolutionary scientists rely to predict the age of geologic structures?

As for creationists being silenced simply for being creationists, I highly recommend the documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” It interviews real people and investigates real situations.

The laws of physics likely didn’t exist before the universe.  I mean, they might have, but there’s no evidence of that, and it doesn’t make logical sense.

But that’s exactly what I’m saying. Science is the study of the natural world. Something beyond nature had to happen to at least form the first piece of matter (or else the first piece of “matter” was beyond nature). Something had to exist without having a creator. Whatever that something is is supernatural. Now, if whateveritwas is supernatural, not abiding by the laws of physics…why couldn’t it have been an intelligent creator?

B) Alright, you want to go ahead and empirically test Creationism, then?  Be my guest.

This is also what I’m trying to say. The study of the beginning of the universe is beyond nature. Using science to try to prove it is like trying to use a wrench to do math. You can speculate about it using what things in science can be proven, but the ultimate beginning of the universe was beyond nature and can never be reproduced.

Well if you believe in God, you’re gonna have to accept that that’s what he did.

I think it’s quite obvious now that’s not the case.

But… they don’t say you don’t know about trans* issues because you’re cis, they’re saying you’re ignorant about trans* issues because of your very public opinions about trans* issues.

I seem to remember he told me I can’t know what trans people go through because I’m not trans. But then proceeded to tell me I’m wrong, and he’s right. It seemed pretty hypocritical. But I don’t care to go back and find the link to this statement, so I’m content to let it drop.

Just because the universe /will/ wind down, doesn’t mean it would have wound down already if it weren’t shiny and new.

I’m not saying it would have definitely run down in billions of years just because. I’m saying people have calculated many known phenomena in the universe backward, to when scientists theorize they were created, and come to the conclusion that these processes should have run down by now.

That doesn’t mean the non-history parts of it are any more credible than any other holy book.

But…Genesis and the history of the creation of the universe claims to be history. True, it is an un-provable part of history, but if the rest of the historical record proved accurate, shouldn’t that give the Bible some historical credibility, some credit to other historical claims?

What has it successfully predicted, though?

“Whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea…” Psalm 8:8 describes oceanic currents millennia before they were discovered.

“The earth hangs upon nothing.” Job 26:7 describes the earth as floating in space millennia before this was discovered.

“It is he who sits above the circle of the earth.” Isaiah 40:22 describes the earth as round millennia before this was discovered.

The hygiene and sanitation laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: don’t defecate inside the encampment, proper diet (to prevent disease), bathing, preventing infection, sanitary preparation of food, etc. Millennia before anyone discovered the cause of disease or proper health practices.

You’re going to need to explain this one to me; did they have more chromosomes than modern humans?  If they did, why did that number diminish to modern levels, but stop there?  If not, then what the heck are you saying?

Noooo, no no. There actually is a part on Adam and Even in that link I put above about mutations, and it explains what I was trying to say (no genetic mutations were built up at that time, which means they couldn’t pass any to their children). Ctrl+F their names, and I think you’ll find it.

I am, but I’m pretty sure I’m going to spit rather than swallow.

Just give it a taste first.