Posted on 06/09/2017 11:01:38 AM PDT by fishtank
June 8, 2017 | David F. Coppedge
Stop the Presses! Human Evolution Falsified!
Human bones found in Morocco undermine almost everything that has been taught about human evolution since Darwin. But is that news? Happens every year, doesn’t it?
This news is so hot, we have to get the word out now and wait for a fuller analysis later. Evolutionary paleoanthropology is in big trouble, if a new find in Morocco is as important as the news are making it out to be. Announced in Nature this week, the discoverers are dating bones from five individuals at over 300,000 Darwin Years old – over 100,000 years older than when they thought modern humans first began to emerge. And it was found in northern Africa – not at Olduvai Gorge or in some South African cave where most of the attention has been focused. Added to that, the discoverers found stone tools and chemical evidence of cooking, and are saying these people probably lived all over Africa at the same time!
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
“It is a great argument you simply show a complete lack of understanding thermodynamics.”
It seems you’re the one lacking that understanding, since you are just parroting bad arguments you’ve read somewhere and not understanding the basic flaws in the arguments that any one with a basic practical knowledge of the laws would comprehend immediately.
“BTW you were the one to bring up sunlight first in a prior post.”
Yes, to point out the fatal flaw in your contention.
“Adding neither sun nor sunlight does not change the proposition.”
Yes, it does, and your continuing attempt to pretend that it doesn’t only shows that you don’t understand the definition of a “system” when it comes to thermodynamics. If you add an element to the system, it is now a new system. You cannot then continue to evaluate the new system as if it were equivalent to the old system. If you are making an argument that the earth is a “closed system”, you cannot suddenly shift to including elements outside of the earth in order to support that proposition, since doing so not only invalidates your own argument, but is a misapplication of the basic elements of the theory itself.
“Take away the sunlight and a devolving Earth only devolves faster.”
Well, the whole point is that you can’t “take away the sunlight”. The sun is, in actuality, there. If you pretend it isn’t there, you aren’t making any argument that applies to the reality of the situation. That’s why your original argument is invalid in the first place.
“Lack of skepticism of a theory that produces inconsistencies is a sign that you aren’t doing science anymore”
This is true, and I’ve never said otherwise. ALL theories should at some level (some more than others) be treated with skepticism. I don’t think any legitimate scientist would disagree with this.
Actually I find it very likely...not the rocks but life. Look up the work by joan oro and the famous miller-urey experiment. We built the building blocks in a lab meant to reproduce the early earth...no reason it couldn’t happen IRL.
Miller-Urey is generally conceded as being an inadequate explanation. And even if the results of the experiment could occur naturally, you're still left with the problem of the overwhelming odds of chemicals forming self-replicating life:
The evidence is not there.
A few questions and observations about your comment, sparklite2: (1) Are you really proposing that our civilization is entirely or even mainly the result of the scientific method? What about its formation established in Greece, Jerusalem, and Rome that has been perking away for at least the past five millennia? And which helps account for the persistency and givenness of human nature down the ages? When was this tremendous legacy "falsified?"
(2) Bishop Ussher was not "some Bronze Age desert dweller." However, he did commit a fallacy, IMHO: He evidently believed that the age of the earth could be calculated by summing up the ages of the patriarchs. We could say he was being "selective" in the qualification of relevant evidence. But the so-called "scientific method" is routinely just as selective about what it qualifies as evidence. Case in point: anthropogenic global warming. If the "evidence" does not fit the pre-existing premise, then it is disregarded -- just as Bishop Usher disregarded other possible factors than the ages of the patriarchs in his calculation of the age of the earth.
How can evolution be "falsified" when so many people have such deep emotional commitment to it? At bottom, such people find it enormously gratifying precisely because it purports to explain how a world can exist that needs no God to explain it. But please tell me, how does one "explain" such things as logic, reason, natural law, mathematics, the persistence of basic human nature over eons, even the scientific method itself? Are such things really the outcomes of directionless, random, mindless evolution over eons?
Now THAT would truly be miraculous!!!
All of which supports intelligent design.
A Lab, a man created environment.
An experiment, an intelligently controlled set of circumstances within that men created environment.
There is NOTHING in creating something in the lab that supports the concept of random occurrences in nature producing the same thing as happened in the controlled environment of a lab.
Unless you are going to try to convince us that what goes on in a laboratory is neither design nor intelligent.
Which doesn’t even come close to the phenomenal level of complexity found in genetics and the information that is carried in it.
For all the derision the current scientific community has towards those who lived in the path, they forget that these same *Bronze age desert dweller* contemporaries, were the ones who laid the very foundations of the science that we learn in elementary school.
They had to discover this stuff and reason it out on their own with very rudimentary equipment and math knowledge.
Considering the handicaps they worked under, those were men of genius the likes of which we rarely see today.
Today we have all the information we need at our fingertips and the knowledge of math and science that we take for granted they had to discover with NO help from anyone.
THAT takes far more brains than spending a couple decades in school being taught all they did not know but had to discover on their own.
We have it so easy it's ridiculous and it is inexcusable to compare them to us and condemn them for the things they did not know that we now learn in 2nd grade.
The smug attitude of intellectual superiority so many scientists have today is a slap in the face to their forerunners.
That is a worthless argument.
The idea that God creating the world with the appearance of age is deception is grasping at straws to disprove creationism.
Creating with the appearance of age is creating for usefulness.
God created man with the appearance of age. But what was He going to do? Put a sperm and an egg together on the ground and wait for a human to grow?
God created an universe perfectly suited to support the life He put in it. It had to have the appearance of age, not to deceive but to be useful.
If I wanted to provide a home for someone to move into and live in immediately, I would built it and furnish it completely.
To be courteous, I would hang up towels, put toilet paper in the bathroom, put soap and shampoo in the tub, leave laundry detergent with the washer and dryer.
I'd leave the heat or AC on for a comfortable environment and food in the fridge so that they wouldn't have to cook meals right away.
And then what? The new owners accuse me of deceiving them about the house being brand new and never been lived in before because it has the appearance of having been occupied?
And as far as man having the appearance of age.....
On the day Adam was created, how old was he?
Creationists would say one day old, and scientists would come along and scoff at them and say the evidence points to man being (say) 30 years old.
And who would be right?
Science is rarely settled and evolution depends on it.
So essentially, it is based on a foundation of shifting sand.
That doesn't make for very settled science.
One must accept the best explanation one can develop, until a better one comes along.
As you say, science is rarely settled, but that need not require giving up on science
Nobody is saying to give up on science, neither does that mean one must hang onto a theory that is clearly flawed.
And yes, you can do that even if you don’t have something to replace it with.
There’s no shame in saying *We don’t know the answer but we know this isn’t right*.
So proving something happens in a lab is not proof that it COULD happen on its own?
The freakin conditions don’t exist naturally on this planet anymore! And since when is making a reproducible experiment in a lab not considered as proof of something.
How about reading the 6th grade version of the scientific method again?
And I presume you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the conditions that scientists create in the lab that they claim represent earth’s early atmosphere, actually existed in reality?
And the assumptions about how the chemicals formed are actually replicating what happened in nature?
Superheavy elements are created in the lab.
Show me where they exist in nature.
We’re never going to know that, it was over 4 billion years ago. All we can do is make an educated guess...even then plants without life aren’t that complicated, the atmo was mostly N, and CO2, with a higher percentage of noble gasses. Those basic amino acids are stable in the lab, they could form in nature except bacteria would break them down.
And like I said in my first post, I could only tell you what’s possible based on the facts. You want the absolute truth on how life started...feel free to hop in your time machine and tell the rest of us. It’s all more reliable then believing in some ancient book of unknown authorship.
We owe a profound debt to these "Bronze Age desert dwellers," but refuse to acknowledge it. Nor do we acknowledge the debts we owe to the great thinkers of the ancient world, e.g., of the great civilizations of the Fertile Crescent, of ancient Egypt, of Athens, Rome, and -- yes -- Jerusalem. Our own civilization is built on the foundations they established, in law, in science, in mathematics, in social organization, in ethics, in human psychology.
But, having destroyed history, we ignorantly suppose that the present generation, maybe including recent generations now past, are the sole creators of our "advanced" human civilization -- via the "scientific method."
Then there is the unstated assumption, fall-out of the logic of Darwinian evolution theory, that people of the past are less worthy than people of the present, because evolution always moves in the direction of "improving" the human stock. Ergo, the more recent human is "better" than humans living in the past. So we can disparage those "Bronze Age desert dwellers" with impunity and not be thought mentally deranged.
One thought in closing. Darwinism fails to explain why human nature itself remains constant over the millennia. The very same things that worried and challenged those "Bronze Age desert dwellers" continue to be the very same things that worry and challenge us today. E.g., problems of aging, sickness, death; of providing sustenance and safe habitation for one's self and one's family; fear of the power of other men over ourselves; etc., etc. I would argue that nothing has changed about fundamental human nature over the past seven millennia, as captured in the historical records.
The only thing about man that has changed is not his human nature, but the tools he uses. And I worry that the tools are co-opting the man who uses them.
Excellent observations, as usual, sister.
Thanks for your input.
[[And I presume you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the conditions that scientists create in the lab that they claim represent earth’s early atmosphere, actually existed in reality?]]
Can’t nature was not capable of separating left hand amino acids from right hand amino acids- the miller experiment had ot ARTIFICIALLY separate the two because the two together destroy one another- the experiment proved that life requires intelligent design AND supernatural intervention in order to happen As well, please note my next post that shows that chemical evolution is not just a little impossible but entirely impossible
The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 1018 seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 1014 square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 109) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 1018 seconds, there can, therefore, be 1018/102, or 1016, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 1014 (109) (1016), or 1039 attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 1060, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 1039 attempts might be successful is only one out of 1060/1039, or 1021.
All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!
http://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/
When trying to determine whether the desired results will happen, always consider that the fractions used in probabilities carry two stories with them. One tells you the chance of something happening, and the other tells you the chance that that same event will not happen; i.e., if the odds are one in ten (10%) that a certain event will occur, then likewise the odds are nine to ten (90%) that it will not...
Who could reasonably believe that a coin will turn up heads 100 times in succession, when the odds for it happening are: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000...and the probability that it won't is: 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 in 1,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...
The probability that the event will not happen is what we must believe if we are concerned about being realistic.
(R. L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pp. 80-81. As quoted on ApologeticsPress.org by Dr. Bert Thompson and Dr. Brad Harrub.)
So—to use another example—if your chances of winning a lottery is less than 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1050), then it's "beyond ridiculous" for even mathematicians to consider "winning the lottery" a realistic possibility. You can consider it a "mathematical fact" that you will not win the lottery (of course, most lotteries have far more realistic odds, such as 1 in 1,000,000).
The point is, there eventually comes a point in the science of Mathematical Probability where the hope for something occurring is so ridiculously negligible—and the hope for the opposite occurring is so overwhelmingly obvious—that rational mathematicians consider it to be essentially impossible.
Not even one simple protein could have been formed by chance—much less 2,000,000
Now that we have the above facts to work with, let's take a look at the probability it would take for nature to randomly create just one protein by chance.
It's been said there are approximately two million different proteins in the human body. Clearly, nature would have had to randomly create ALL of them for Chemical Evolution to be true. But let's keep it simple and look at the odds that just ONE could have been formed by chance.
Since proteins are made up of amino acids (amino acids are chemical compounds), and given that there are 20 amino acids in the human body, and assuming a given protein contains only 100 amino acids(the longest presently known is 26,926!)—the mathematical probability that a human protein could accidentally arise from random combinations of those 20 possible amino acids into a specific human protein is 1 chance in 20100, or well beyond 1 in 10100.
Carl Sagan estimated this probability to be approximately 1 in 10130 (Carl Sagan, Encyclopaedia Britannica).
So, since Borel's Law indicates that it's ridiculous to consider probabilities with odds of less than 1 in 1050, that what does that tell us about whether or not a protein could "create itself" accidentally?
Well, 1 in 10130 is trillions of times less likely than 1 in 1050—meaning, if 1 in 1050 is scientifically absurd, then seriously considering that just one protein could come about by chance is "absurd" multiplied one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times.
Thus, even the formation of one, simple protein is so far beyond "mathematical impossibility" that anyone who seriously believes it happened is uniformed, deceived, or incapable of grasping the truth.
And remember, there are approximately 2,000,000 currently discovered proteins in the human body!
Isn't it amazing the extent to which people will go to deny the obviousness of God?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.