Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

No it doesn't. Even basic astrophysics tells us that Sun provides the earth with energy input.

The Earth is an open and closed system

The Earth is a closed system for matter

''The Earth is made up of chemical elements – think of the periodic table. That is a list of all basic elemental materials on our planet. Because of gravity, matter (comprising all solids, liquids and gases) does not leave the system. It is a closed box. And, the laws of thermodynamics, long agreed by scientists, tell us that it’s impossible to destroy matter. So the chemical matter we have on Earth will always be here. The important question is, how are those chemicals organised?

The Earth is an open system for energy

It is accepted science that the Earth is an open system for energy. Energy radiates into the Earth’s system, mainly from the sun. Energy is then radiated back into space from the Earth, with the flows being regulated by the Earth’s atmosphere and ozone layer. This delicate balanced transfer of energy maintains the surface temperature at a level that is suited to the forms of life that have evolved and currently exist.''





No, that is your interpretation. Nagel is a philosopher, and his objections are philosophical not scientific, hence interesting as ideas and speculation but not science.

''In thinking about Nagel’s probability argument, we need to be careful about which facts we are considering. The fact that life on earth started some 3.8 billion years ago, and that intelligence and consciousness made their terrestrial appearances more recently—this is a local fact about our planet, and maybe it was very improbable, given how the universe got started. But consider the more global fact that the universe contains life and intelligence and consciousness at some time in its total history. What’s the probability of that, given the universe’s initial state? Science doesn’t really have much of a clue (yet), but this gap in our present knowledge does not show that fundamental presuppositions of the sciences need rethinking. After all, conventional science does tell us that the universe is a very big place with lots of planets that are about as close to their stars as our planet is to the sun. Maybe life and intelligence and consciousness had a high probability of arising (someplace and sometime, not necessarily on earth in the last 3.8 billion years). If this global fact is the remarkable fact that Nagel has in mind, he should not conclude that biology needs to be supplied with new organizing principles. Do not confuse the proposition that Evelyn Marie Adams won the New Jersey lottery twice in four months with the proposition that someone won some state lottery or other twice, at some time or other. The first was very improbable, the second much less so.''

Apart from taking in solar energy, does not the earth system also take in matter in the form of space dust particles?

is there not also ~ atmospheric escape?...whereby certain gases [helium and hydrogen] do get away into space?

Of course, but apparently it's not significant enough to count as an open system as far as Matter goes, yet we do have matter input from space dust, meteorites, etc, adding to the mass of the planet.

Mars used to have water and some sort of atmosphere but because of its smaller size (and some additional event?) its gravity wasn't sufficient to hold onto it so it all disappeared into space.

Venus is about the same size as Earth but its atmosphere has gone all "greenhouse" - has water and atmosphere but is too hot now. Apparently was habitable some time ago.

The only cycle of futility I see is asking you to answer a simple yes or no question.

You're apparently incapable.

About the only thing I've got out of all this rannygazoo is that true believers of the psychosomatic theory's of Chas. Darwin are taken as proven fact, infallible and anyone that questions it must be hopelessly insane because they question the belief that logical theory is indeed proven fact.

You are trying mighty hard to ignore the obvious and undeniable. Clearly, ol' Chas. Darwin scares the jesus out of some of you guys. Why is that?

I'm always curious when I see folks that understand that there is such a thing as heredity, and there is variation, and yet deny that given these two things, evolution not only doesn't happen, but can't happen. How can it NOT happen?

There you go again proving that anyone that does not fall into line as a true believer is somehow ignoring "obvious and undeniable" what, proven fact? Then lay it out but don't just run around in circles beating your drum about being "obvious and undeniable".

The Theory of evolution has become a religion of itself much like the religion of global warming and before that global cooling.

It's not a religion at all. You do understand there are such things as genes? That they vary from one individual to the next? That they can mutate? That some genes are better than others for a given circumstance? These things are obvious and undeniable, no?

If so, how to you PREVENT evolution from happening?

Most charitably I think Darwinism can be described as a logical explanation based on observations of natural phenomena for which Darwin had little means of understanding. In human history, I think his theory can best be compared to the theories of medicine formulated in classical times by Hippocrates and Galen. For nearly 1500 years these theories of bodily humors and bile dominated medical thought. Today they seem hopelessly outdated and trite, but they really were quite significant. They were attempts to explain the functions of the body by natural means based on observations. They lacked the technology and the basic scientific knowledge actually understand what was going on in the body, so mostly the conclusions they reached were completely wrong. But to them, based on their understandings, all of their conclusions were proven by observations of bodily processes and results. Their theories could cause them to prescribe certain treatments and when the patient improved, the “science” behind their theories was proved.

When Darwin came up with his theory in the middle of the 19th Century, nearly every single science that would be needed to actually prove the nuts and bolts of how change might actually occur in an organism was either in its infancy or nonexistent. Chemistry was not much better than alchemy by then. The study of genetics was rudimentary. DNA and RNA were unknown and so and so forth. And none of this was Darwin’s or anyone else’s fault. Much of the technology needed to investigate these areas did not exist. Microscopes were rudimentary. Electricity as a source of practical power was 50 years in the future and so on and so forth. So, Darwin’s theory was necessarily incomplete by gaps in his knowledge. But to the extent that it explained things in accordance with 19th Century understandings, it was perfectly plausible and usuable.

Classical medicine held sway for 1500 years. Not until the Middle Ages did scientists and doctors begin to seriously challenge it. And at first this began with dissection of actual human bodies. The bodies had always been there to dissect, but classical taboos against dissection had carried over to the Christian Era and it wasn’t until the Middle Ages that they began to loosen enough to allow those first scientific explorations. Yet, these early pioneers face tremendous backlash and persecution. Was not medical science already established and backed by 1500 years of practice and observation? What could the upstarts hope to prove with their unscientific hacking and and prodding of dead bodies? But they persevered and slowly things changed. Yet, it was slow going. As late as the 1880s ad US president would die a slow and agonizing death from a massive infection because his physician did not believe in the germ theory of disease and never washed his hands nor even cleaned the president’s bullet wound. Think of it, a world leader, well into the mechanical age of global transportation and communication was cared for with methods that were effectively no different than those a thousand years before.

With Darwin it was nearly a hundred years of unquestioned supremacy before scientist could look at and begin to understand what happens at the molecular and chemical level. Only in the last fifty years has it even been possible to comprehend some of the workings required. Is that because Darwin was dumb? No, the technology and the base knowledge was not there for him. Does that mean that many observations don’t “prove” his theory? Oh no, like in past medicine, the observations often fit the theory quite well. But are they true? Not necessarily. If the can’t be explained and understood at the actual molecular and chemical level, then they can’t be said to be true. Just as a classical doctor could prescribe a course of treatment based on his understanding of the four bodily humors and see its success as proof that his understandings were correct without really understanding the actual processes, a modern Darwinist could cite the fossil record, the similarity of organisms, the fact of observable micro evolution, the self evidence of our existence as “proof” that Darwin was essentially correct. But without an actual understanding of the processes involved to the point that they can be logically explained and duplicated at the molecular, chemical, and cellular level, they remain merely elaborate guesses. Informed guesses to be sure, but guesses nonetheless.

None of this is to say that creation happened in six literal days. None of this is to say that evolution is necessarily wrong. None of this is to pose an alternate theory. All this is, is to say that there are some serious problems at the molecular, chemical, and cellular level that merely saying “well, yeah though...in a few billion years it would happen” don’t adequately answer. And until those questions are answered, it is possible that the last 150 years of Darwin has been as misguided as the 1,500 years of Hippocrates and Galen was.

Where is the proof that it never happened?

There are examples of transitionals and examples have been provided in this thread.

So the 3% that doubt evolution are comparable to the extremist Muslims that want to blow us all up? You made that comparison, not me.

Your distinction between science and philosophy is analytically silly but a standard canard trotted out by Darwinists when some high-level thinker points out the logical flaws in the philosophy of neo-darwinism. In any event, Nagel recognizes that the odds are essentially impossible for evolution. The quote above does not tame those odds. See my prior reference to the math of physicist Gerard Schroeder on the long odds.

Evolution is not a hypothesis.
Futurism July 18th 2014

“One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.”

"One of the most important discoveries that lead to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution was extinct animals found as fossils. Early paleontologists, like Charles Lyell and George Cuvier, noticed a very simple fact: Species that lived in the past are very often drastically, wildly different from anything alive today. Trilobites, dinosaurs, giant sloths, baculites, etc., they all suggest that life on Earth has changed quite a bit.”

My religious nutter barber who believes that the Earth is only 6000 years has a perfectly logical (to him) response to that theory. Quote: "All the fossils that people are finding all over the world were buried by Atheists. He is a good barber though.

Wouldn't that be educated people, genius?

Oh, and everything is debatable, unless you're a God forsaken lieberal demoncrap bound for Hell. They like to claim things undebatable, since they lose if they try.

Yeah, the "from goo to you by way of the zoo" cretins are brilliant! Just ask them. LOL

Stihl.....................



at it I see?

On which side of the Ice in the Whiskey (Whisky???, shall we debate that question also?) Debate do the theists and Darwinists lie?

Geno

PS, No beans preferably. Electric lawnmower, not stinky o l' gas mower, too.

If its good whiskey, keep the ice away.