Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Tattva]

I am bit confused with your interpretation that in the beginning is a state of nothingness in not science.

would that mean sir that in the beginning there's some beginnings already? you see sir, the big bang attempted to show the beginning of everything. therefore it is most logical to state that in the beginning is a state of nothingness. and if you argue that in the beginning there are things... elements... etc... already then evolution is a complete failure.

if you argue that it start with an energy... then can you please tell me the source of that energy, where did it came from?

yes sir the first law of thermodynamics energy/matter can be be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. (conservation so to speak) energy nor matter cannot produce (create) another energy nor another matter, right?) mao na ako pasabot. and the big bang contradicts that big time! it suggest that eveything was formed out from that explotion! of a dot not bigger than a point in any given text book.

and no energy sir can form a matter. even unsaon pana nimo walay ma form nga matter maski unsang energy imong i-apply sa hangin sir.

i have provided a lot of evidences sir in which evolution theory clearly tried breaking the known scientific facts and laws, which sadly to say you never get to realized until now. I am assuming that you are doing selective processing of available information only in the context of your argument(s). let me itemized them for you and these are not just unsubstantiated accusations as you tried to show:

1. the law of thermodynamics
2. the law of Biogenesis
3. the conservation of angular momentum
4. Mathematical computations which i have stated before here in this thread.
5. Genetic mutations. seen in microevolution therefore possible for macroevolution

that's just my list sir... and i am no world class creationist science advocate nor a scientist.

don't enumerate them like in passing... fossils... common decent... granulation of earth, carbon dating, etc... show them all, give details that will tie loose ends let's see if indeed you got the evidence. lisod mangud na sir, nga basta nalang mention ka ana mga butanga, evidence na dayun na. for all we know youmay have a different understanding of it than the other evolutionist. maayo nang klaro sir ba.

yes evolution requires faith because you don't have direct evidence but suggestive evidence of a possibility and for you to take it as a fact, entails faith to that belief. and i don't mind you having such faith in evolution, it is your right. but please don;t push it as a scientific fact because it is not. that is why after all these years yours is still a theory and all you have are observable possibilities.

tattva, ang ako observable trends is based on my faith to my GOD. when he said in the bible that they will bring forth their own kind... lo and behold science agreed with it! mutated genes to some, yes! but cat produces big, small, spotted, uni color, etc... etc... but still cat.

when GOD said in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. well HE did! by faith I see the Intelligent design by a great intelligent designer...... science prove that... a creation govern by laws that put the universe in order. HE is the law giver, because it is not possible for the law of gravity, inertia to sprout out of evolution, one has to be in charge why the universe is in great order as we see it.

nothing in science will disprove the existence of a creator. but you a lot in science that will question the validity of evolution.

as i have said there is no need for you to defend evolution as a belief of yours to me or to anyone. but to say it is a scientific fact, then you have to substantiate it sir with scientific evidence.

yes that is not science.

kabalo ka. ka dakong misconception ana imong principle. Kanang theory nga "energy cant be created or destroyed" means dil ma Create ang energy out from nothing, it is constant. It cant be destroyed but mo transfom na into a different energy. mao nay pasabot ana.

So kay imo man ning gi invoke so pasabot mo too ka ani. So pasabot sayup ng imong CREATIONISM nga naay creator, kay ang energy dili man na ma create. hahahahaha. ka dakong confusion. klaroha sa na imong science.


now about BBT(big bang theory) misconception sab ng imong gisulti diha, cge man gud ka ug basa ug creationism. Kanang State of nothingness nga imong gisulti, its sounds more like creationism, the void mentioned in genesis.

Sir para makasabot ka kung unsa pasabot sa BBT be diligent basah ni akong e paste...par di ka mauwawan.


Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is NOT about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does NOT imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was NOT an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book "Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche" ("cosmology for the pocket"): "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)

Finally, the webpage describing the ekpyrotic universe (a model for the early universe involving concepts from string theory) contains a good recounting of the standard misconceptions. Read the first paragraph, "What is the Big Bang model?".

There are a number of reasons that these misconceptions persist in the public mind. First and foremost, the term "Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory. He was a proponent of the competing "Steady State" model and had a very low opinion of the idea of an expanding universe. Another source of confusion is the oft repeated expression "primeval atom". This was used by Lemaitre (one of the theory's early developers) in 1927 to explain the concept to a lay audience, albeit one that would not be familiar with the idea of nuclear bombs for a few decades to come. With these and other misleading descriptions endlessly propagated by otherwise well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) media figures, it is not surprising that many people have WILDLY DISTORTED ideas about what BBT says. Likewise, the fact that many in the public think the theory is rather ridiculous is to be expected, given their inaccurate understanding of the theory and the data behind it.

credit goes to----- Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton


kanang nothingness diha pasabot ana nga nothing as in no earth no form no shape nothing. Dili nothing nga pasabot sa creationists nga nothing nga void or Nihilism.


naa pa ay definition sa 1st law of thermodynamics....

"The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing"

mao nay sakto nga pagsabot anang 1st law. key word sir is conversion dili creation out from nothing. Constant ang energy ba. hahahaha.

karn kinsa may wa kasabot ug science natong duha? hahahahahaha.

[Tattva]

So the question now is what keeps the trends mentioned above from producing gradually a fly to ? to ? to ? then finally an elephant? --- you mean this tattva?

simple genetic limitations..... nothing in science had shown a magnitude of genetic addition and mutation that had created an entirely different kind of specie. like a fly producing a different kind of mutated organism other than a fly of slightly differing from the original fly!

oi finally nitubag na, pero kuwang pa sir daghan pa tong follow up questions sa taas. pls dont be selective.

Yes nothing in science has shown a magnitude of genetic addition but evolution as ive said is gradual. little addition plus little addition plus little addition, you got BIG addition.

Sir speciation(production of a new specie) is a proven fact, even creationists will agree to that.

[Tattva]

so ma'am in the begining in the point of view of the evolutionist is what?

again ma'am... where did matter came from? where did the space for the matter to occupy came from? whether it is weightless or it is a black hole or whatever it is. someone created it? or it magically evolve from nothing?

I agree! that is exactly what the first law of thermodynamics is ma'am.... matter/energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. so where did the enrgy came from? how come the big bang from an energy is able to create matter(s) in the universe? how come?

I don't have any intention of dismissing them ms. tripwire, as i have said push all walls to get that elusive evidence but until then it is a theory worth knowing but will never be a basis of factual conclusions. mao na ang problem ma'am kay some evolutionist negate from that and drop everything and keep on saying that they have science behind them nga clearly they don't.

some even try to manipulate knows scientific facts just to push evolution as a factual science, which is not.

the bible is full of information that is worth looking at to. it is not authored by a person but by a bunch of people from all walks of life, rich, poor, lawyers, tax collector, prophets, kings, slave, widow , fishermen. in their diversity they found unity. Inspired definitely yes!

Science book. is sure a great thing. this we learn alot, to be good thinkers and understand things around us, we have good doctors, nurses, lab tech, etc etc. that is why we need to be factual in our concepts supported by medical scientific evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise we will end up killing our own race by mere speculations of possibilities. ma'am.

GOD bless you too.

I just want to give a comment about this one. This is a quote from Mr.Ho_chia as his response to Ms.Tripwire's brilliant explanation.


Sir the answers to your questions above was already mentioned in Ms.Tripwire's explanation.


questions like...

" where did matter came from? where did the space for the matter to occupy came from? whether it is weightless or it is a black hole or whatever it is. someone created it? or it magically evolve from nothing?"


these questions are based on the false assumption that someone created matter. Why assume nga naay creator? because genesis said so, now is genesis a science book? no.

Go back sa imong gi invoke nga 1st law of thermodynamics...Energy is constant. Walay ni create ani ug dili ni ma create. Imo ra gi refute imong kaugalingung argument.

[tripwire]

question lang gamay, why creationism hold on to micro-evolution nga branch of science man gihapon?

[Mr.Ho_chia]

hahahahaha. ako hysterical? hahahahaha.

and i am crambling? hahahahaha

know my science? hahahahah.


dodong...ikaw ray daghang misrepresentation diha.

ka assuming nimo oi.

ikaw may nagwala diha kay tan-aw nimo strong naa kaau imong argument hahahaha. Nya nasuko ka kay matubag man nako. tsk tsk.


Mao ni statement ay about spontaneous generation nga kunuhay na disproven na...hahahaha

"what did Pasteur prove? Did he prove that no life can ever come from non-living things? No, he didn't, and this is because you cannot disprove something like that experimentally, only theoretically, and he had no theory of molecular biology to establish this claim. What he showed was that it was highly unlikely that modern living organisms arose from non-living organic material. This is a much more restricted claim than that primitive life once arose from non-living non-organic material."


Nya sir gusto ta ko mo discuss niom about ani pero lain man ka ug style gud. kay bisan asa ka abot.

remember sir spontaneous generation atong topic pero mo abot man ka ug Big Bang tsk tsk.

So puede ato sa e set aside ang big bang para Atong ma discuss ang recent update sa theory sa spontaneous genration nga mo prove nga katong experiments ni Pasteur(ang nag refute kunuhay sa abiogenesis) daghang sayup. hahahaha, nga maoy gipanghambog nimo. Disproven gud tawn, hahahaha.

Oo sir nag hysterical na sab ka. kay nagimagine ka nga nag cge ko ug cyagit. aw kalimot ko kusog man d i ka mo assume sa.

dgahn ko misinterpretations? kay wa nag dayog sa imong pamolong? bwahahaha. panamin sa sir, tan-awa imong kaugalingon kung kinsa puno ug assumption. and to think buddha ka. self control nyor, ug patience, kay mao nay virtues sa mga monks. Mura dako kag kulang anang dapita. kay maghystrical mankag puka-puka dayun dhang dapita.

hahaha. asa imong tubag ato? katong gpangutana tka about conservation of angular momentum and chemical evolution... taypa ako kang iremind gamay... unsay to imong gsulti..... d a i "wala ko matubag nang dapita kay way apil sa biological evolution" bwahahahahaha.

sakto ka, matubag dayun nimo ug ---- wa ka may nahibao-an!".

unya magdahum nga iyang natubag. bwahahahaha!

you should understand that i only reciprocate a provocative response from an unacceptable behavior, such as the one you deliberately showcased.


sayop si pasteur noh? sakto kah. amo silingan ai ilang iring malibang bulawan basta imo sang usapon ang tae sa iring. that's observable science. ug wala sab na ma disproven ni pasteur. Ang kapait nimo kay maconfuse ka. adto ka dayun research mga philosophical argument on how to re battle such a logical scientific fact and you say to yourself, i have a good answers already, but your objectivity is lost and the real purpose of seeking the validity of your arguments is totally compromised by your sound logical discrepancy brought about by a retaliatory behavior.

yah because spontaneous generation is the argument behind it all. including after the big bang. you cannot get rid of a part and focus on one only, you have to rationalize everything. in a very scientific point of view!

oi by the way it was hellblazer who said that it was disproven. such a short memory. mao na ang kaparat nimo, kay you are so focus on your retaliation towards me that you associate any contradiction on your statement as mr.ho_Chia's propaganda. bwahahaha. what a show of weak personality and a vindictive soul. far from being a buddhist.

cge minawun nato imong abiogenesis, and please do an experiment and post it at youtube. arun kita ta sa imong million dollar experiment! makasapi ka ana dodong. cge! excited ko, but sulti paman lang imo wa pa ang tinuod nga true to life, storya pa.

[jayspike]

i believe in evolution but who knows what are the things that will evolve and how.

[jayspike]

up for now

[Mr.Ho_chia]

yes that is not science.

kabalo ka. ka dakong misconception ana imong principle. Kanang theory nga "energy cant be created or destroyed" means dil ma Create ang energy out from nothing, it is constant. It cant be destroyed but mo transfom na into a different energy. mao nay pasabot ana.

So kay imo man ning gi invoke so pasabot mo too ka ani. So pasabot sayup ng imong CREATIONISM nga naay creator, kay ang energy dili man na ma create. hahahahaha. ka dakong confusion. klaroha sa na imong science.


now about BBT(big bang theory) misconception sab ng imong gisulti diha, cge man gud ka ug basa ug creationism. Kanang State of nothingness nga imong gisulti, its sounds more like creationism, the void mentioned in genesis.

Sir para makasabot ka kung unsa pasabot sa BBT be diligent basah ni akong e paste...par di ka mauwawan.


Common misconceptions about the Big Bang

In most popularized science sources, BBT is often described with something like "The universe came into being due to the explosion of a point in which all matter was concentrated." Not surprisingly, this is probably the standard impression which most people have of the theory. Occasionally, one even hears "In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

There are several misconceptions hidden in these statements:

The BBT is NOT about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
BBT does NOT imply that the universe was ever point-like.
The origin of the universe was NOT an explosion of matter into already existing space.
The famous cosmologist P. J. E. Peebles stated this succinctly in the January 2001 edition of Scientific American (the whole issue was about cosmology and is worth reading!): "That the universe is expanding and cooling is the essence of the big bang theory. You will notice I have said nothing about an 'explosion' - the big bang theory describes how our universe is evolving, not how it began." (p. 44). The March 2005 issue also contained an excellent article pointing out and correcting many of the usual misconceptions about BBT.

Another cosmologist, the German Rudolf Kippenhahn, wrote the following in his book "Kosmologie fuer die Westentasche" ("cosmology for the pocket"): "There is also the widespread mistaken belief that, according to Hubble's law, the Big Bang began at one certain point in space. For example: At one point, an explosion happened, and from that an explosion cloud travelled into empty space, like an explosion on earth, and the matter in it thins out into greater areas of space more and more. No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other." In a footnote, he added: "In popular science presentations, often early phases of the universe are mentioned as 'at the time when the universe was as big as an apple' or 'as a pea'. What is meant there is in general the epoch in which not the whole, but only the part of the universe which is observable today had these sizes." (pp. 46, 47; FAQ author's translation, all emphasizes in original)

Finally, the webpage describing the ekpyrotic universe (a model for the early universe involving concepts from string theory) contains a good recounting of the standard misconceptions. Read the first paragraph, "What is the Big Bang model?".

There are a number of reasons that these misconceptions persist in the public mind. First and foremost, the term "Big Bang" was originally coined in 1950 by Sir Fred Hoyle, a staunch opponent of the theory. He was a proponent of the competing "Steady State" model and had a very low opinion of the idea of an expanding universe. Another source of confusion is the oft repeated expression "primeval atom". This was used by Lemaitre (one of the theory's early developers) in 1927 to explain the concept to a lay audience, albeit one that would not be familiar with the idea of nuclear bombs for a few decades to come. With these and other misleading descriptions endlessly propagated by otherwise well-meaning (and not so well-meaning) media figures, it is not surprising that many people have WILDLY DISTORTED ideas about what BBT says. Likewise, the fact that many in the public think the theory is rather ridiculous is to be expected, given their inaccurate understanding of the theory and the data behind it.

credit goes to----- Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton


kanang nothingness diha pasabot ana nga nothing as in no earth no form no shape nothing. Dili nothing nga pasabot sa creationists nga nothing nga void or Nihilism.


naa pa ay definition sa 1st law of thermodynamics....

"The 1st Law of Thermodyamics simply states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed (conservation of energy). Thus power generation processes and energy sources actually involve conversion of energy from one form to another, rather than creation of energy from nothing"

mao nay sakto nga pagsabot anang 1st law. key word sir is conversion dili creation out from nothing. Constant ang energy ba. hahahaha.

karn kinsa may wa kasabot ug science natong duha? hahahahahaha.

YES, anything that is not substantiated is not a scientific fact.

sir wala lo nagtagiya sa thermodynamic law which clearly states that "energy cant be created or destroyed". mga scientist imong reklamohan sir.

nag tuo ka nga ako author sa thermodynamics law? sure ka? bwahahahaha! na libog ka gamay sir, dili ako tag-iya ana. user rako anang proven scientific fact. hahahaha. lingawa nako sir nimo oi, hapit ko mahagbong sa ako gi-lingkuran.

kasabot ko ana sir. the energy is there, and is transformed and you cannot create more than what you have. ang imong big bang sir? ang matter adto gamay pa sa akong kugmo (sorry for the language) unya na himo tibuok universe.

awa sir ha:

. = Entire universe

mao na ang equation sa imong bigbang. that dot is exactly the matter that your bigbang is describing kanang entire universe word palang na, not the acutal thing, yet you can see already that it is a much bigger matter.
see now?!

amawa gyud nimo sir oi. maski unsaun pana nimog hunahuna sir, even how you cut everything into minute and small pieces,,, you will always end in a certain amount to start with when discussing the origin of everything. just like the dot.... and once you reach to that end the minutest of the minutest minute.... you will no longer be able to rationalize its existence and of course evolutionist will say 'a basta kay mao nana naara gyud na cya ni tunga"

because in everything to be possible their should be someone outside the origin. maski unsaon paghuna-huna sir, katayin pananimo tanan, basta if you talk about the origin, you will end up thinking logically that there should indeed be someone that is outside that origin to make all these things possible. and that's where creationist have the fulfillment of their belief based on their faith. but to evolutionist, aw, imaginun nalang nga basta naay kugmo ni tunga. mao ra end of question kay basta scientific nana. Hahaha.

sir if the universe didn't begin with the bigbang but just a development of the already existing universe, so what the heck are we arguing things about? clearly evolution have nothing to do with the start of everything was admitted by you and your evolutionist source.

so sir, how did the universe came to be or started? somebody created it? bwahahahaha. pagka pangkoy, the theory of evolution which most if not all atheist embrace trying to prove that GOD did not creat it is actually the same theory that acknowledges the creator. katawanan.

Sir I know what the law of thermodynamics sir.... that is why nakatawa ko nimo... d a ako i quote imong mga pamolong ha, kay kalimtanun raba ka sir: reply 512 na nimo sir

Cge ka ug syagit dihag evidence show evidence nya kung naay evidence dili motubag sa pangutana nya mo misrepresnt pa jud ka. Matter and energy cant be created? energy cguro but matter pfft...nganu gud tawn dili ma create. nay ako pa imong sultihan nga i need to know my science, hahahahaha. maka hinumdum man pod ta sa mix breeding ani.

unsa imong sulti, enrgy cguro but matter puff.... maypa puff puff kapa ha. unsa ka power puff girls Bwahahaha!

cge kuno sir, create a new matter beh... patanaw ko.

kay akong nahibao-an mo create ka papel, magputol paman ka kahoy, huhat ka ampao... kniahanglan man bugas.
cge kuno sir beh,, ipakita dayun imong kamaayong puff dha..... create a matter beh!

bwahahahaha. kaluoy! kauwaw sa sir noh? naglectire paka nako thermodynamics, kay sayop ko ikaw sakto, cge beh.... tanawun nato imo abilidad.

nya tubaga ni imong pangutana beh....karn kinsa may wa kasabot ug science natong duha? hahahahahaha.

cge dayun... kauwaw sa!BWAHAHAHA.

[Hellblazer]

maybe we were created and then maybe we will evolve.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Tattva dodong.... d a pa ai about the bigbang which contradicts your claim nga it does not talks about the origin of the universe but the development of a prehistoric universe.


The Big Bang theory
Big Bang

The so-called Big Bang theory is the current favoured hypothesis of the formation of the universe according to astronomy. This asserts that some 12-15 billion years ago there was a suddenly expansion and explosion of all matter and energy out of an original point - out of literally nothing - and that not only space but even time began at this moment. (So we cannot speak of an explosion in space - because there was no space before, or no time at which this could be measured - space and time being properties of the universe rather than something outside of it).

and dong use google, daghan pana sila nga true evolutionist nga gasulti that the bigbang is the start of the universe.

nana sab kay imong brand? bwahahaha.

sir sorry but i need to say this to you again.... i hope you won't take offense but this is just my observation:

1, you are confused. because you are not only subscribing to evolution you also have a sort of a religion. mao na nga dili ka full blooded evolutionist. you have your own brand. and that triggers much confusions on your part.

2. you take me as your #1 adversary... the "yawa" of your life and you become so retaliatory and vindictive. you attribute comments by other istoryans to be mine for as long as it contradict yours. you are too focus on me than to what i say in a very negative way.

3. I didn't want to engage you in this discussion because, you are not the right person and the right evolutionist that have the basic and advance information in him already but you are still a neophyte learning step by step and you used me in that aspect. see how you admit spontaneous generation to be a not so credible evidence and after a day you come back with a big hump and shusss and undermine pasteur. hahaha.

4. you are so angry and i assume you are full of hate against my person. and i really don't want to provoke the irrational part of you. but rather your rationality toward this topic.

but since we are already here, might as well enjoy it. so sir, defend your arguments and drop your side comments. I am guilty of that as well, and i vow to do the same. but i don't drop out of any retaliatory strategy by anyone, not even by a practicing buddhist like you, whom i thought was endowed with so much self control and deep tolerance.

Ami Taffah.... Budd-ha bless you!