Evolution is an exercise in creative thinking.

This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.


2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

a reply to: reploid

There is no such thing as an 'evolutionist'. That word doesn't exist.

a reply to: reploid

ah, I almost fell asleep.
Quick & in short, THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS UTTER BS NONSENSE.

"Evolutionists" have got it wrong, with Darwin leading the front.
However, there is a saying going around that he himself did admit that he had been interpreted in a wrong way and that the theory was made up.

originally posted by: reploid
This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

Some people want there religion to be true so bad they'll believe anything.....not "evolutionists".... I mean the OP. Every point you made is ridiculous. Obviously your only reading Christian conspiracy sites.

You do realize that about half of modern medicine is from evolution. .... Don't fall for there garbage.

a reply to: reploid


People won't be able to add to your list. Creationists all use the same debunked talking points. There is no example of it irreducable complexity. We know how the eye evolved. We have found missing links. Cloning and gene theropy are 100% based on evolution. Hell half our bodies are remnenrs of when we were reptiles or amphibians.


Y'all are silly!

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: reploid
This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

Some people want there religion to be true so bad they'll believe anything.....not "evolutionists".... I mean the OP. Every point you made is ridiculous. Obviously your only reading Christian conspiracy sites.

You do realize that about half of modern medicine is from evolution. .... Don't fall for there garbage.

the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs" or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a helluva more about medicine than we do today.
We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

btw, you just can't spell "THEIR" as "THERE".

a reply to: reploid

I heard in a conversation yesterday that Australia have found 9 new species of fish that are growing arms and legs.

Haven't had time to research it yet, anyone else heard this??


Thanks

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: reploid
This thread is aimed at highlighting the creative thinking evolutionists apply to keep afloat the theory of evolution. If conjecture and leaps of imagination have no place in legitimate science, then there is no real reason why evolution, also touted as a "legitimate science", should operate on conjecture and leaps of imagination.

1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

Some people want there religion to be true so bad they'll believe anything.....not "evolutionists".... I mean the OP. Every point you made is ridiculous. Obviously your only reading Christian conspiracy sites.

You do realize that about half of modern medicine is from evolution. .... Don't fall for there garbage.

the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs" or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a helluva more about medicine than we do today.
We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

btw, you just can't spell "THEIR" as "THERE".

Yea that's why we live 40 years longer then any time in history, because obviously the anchient a knew more about medicine....do you even believe your garbage? Lmao


Now of course,since the medical industry is for profit, you have evil people try and profit off of selling snake oil or hiding side effects.



pS. Obviously I can use there as their...I just did. Hehe

originally posted by: reploid


1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

Darwin lived from 1809-1882. Science has moved on and evolved since his ideas. Just because Darwin says something, doesn't mean that it is gospel for the rest of eternity. This point is utter nonsense.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

You know we have examples of animals that can change their sex if there is a population that is heavy in one sex but not another. This is believed to be one of the ways that sex evolved. But hey don't let me mix up the facts, here is an article explaining it. Though, keep in mind these are hypotheses and are FAR from proven to be true:

Evolution of sexual reproduction

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

99.999% of all species on the planet are extinct, including FIVE mass extinction events. Are you telling me that these animals just POPPED into existence completely whole and while looking similar to an animal that came before it? Because, first I'd like to see evidence of this happening. I haven't seen any new species of animals pop into existence while I've been alive, and going by the fact that there has been 5 extinction events, this must be a regular occurrence throughout Earth's history. So how about you start off with the evidence for your side?

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

Stupid point. You do know that bacteria isn't a species right? There are MANY different species of bacteria and we HAVE shown that one species of bacteria has evolved into a new species of bacteria. This claim is just straight up wrong.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

No there isn't. Where is the evidence for YOUR version of events?

a reply to: reploid

1. First the Cambrian Explosion was not rapid, it refers to a period of about 30 million years. We can observe changes in some species of this period in time frames of as little as 5 to 10 million years. But that is still plenty of time for evolution to do its thing.

2. Some things relating to ancient cannot yet be explained it's true. However we understand quite a bit, and a lot of hypotheses about ancient evolution can and have been tested. We know sexual reproduction is better than asexual, even though it costs more energy, because it is a better way of keeping up with the constant arms race going on in every living organism between disease and host.
Studies on the Mexican Topminnow show that when they breed asexually, they carry many more disease causing worms than when they breed sexually. We may not yet know how the earliest microorganisms evolved sexual reproduction, because they just don't fossilize that well. But we haven't stopped looking.

3. If fossils were the only things we had to go on, we wouldn't have nearly as complete a picture of the history of life on Earth as we now do. However thanks to work in genetics, we now know that all life is fundamentally the same. We can follow genomes back and clearly show that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Your analogy would be correct if all we do is simply look at the artifact with our eyes. But we can do so much more. Radioisotope dating, electron microscopy, and genetic testing can actually tell us facts about the past.

4. I'm afraid this can only be explained by time. It's just really really important to try and understand that we are talking about hundreds of millions of years. That is a long time. We know organisms change and adapt to their environment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: reploid


1. Imagination used to fill in gaps...
Take for example, the "cambrian explosion". Evolutionists have "patched" the issue by concocting the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory is pretty much a miracle within the theory of evolution....as it directly contradicts the Darwinian idea that complex lifeforms evolved gradually over millions of years.

Darwin lived from 1809-1882. Science has moved on and evolved since his ideas. Just because Darwin says something, doesn't mean that it is gospel for the rest of eternity. This point is utter nonsense.

2. Guesswork and conjecture...
Questions such as "how did sex evolve" are usually responded to with a "what happened was..." or "it happened because..." type of explanation. Evolutionists presume it "evolved" and then proceed to conjecture on "why" or "how" it happened, thereby making it pretty much anybodys guess (as long as its within the framework of the theory)...but not objective science that can be tested or observed

You know we have examples of animals that can change their sex if there is a population that is heavy in one sex but not another. This is believed to be one of the ways that sex evolved. But hey don't let me mix up the facts, here is an article explaining it. Though, keep in mind these are hypotheses and are FAR from proven to be true:

Evolution of sexual reproduction

3. Misinterpreting fossil evidence...
The fossil of an extinct animal is evidence that such an animal once existed. Nothing more, nothing less. However, evolutionists interpret the fossil specimens in light of evolution and conclude it is part of a sequence, thereby fitting a presumption. A rough analogy would be like finding an artefact of an ancient kingdom and insisting that the kingdom came to an end ONLY by foriegn invasion and nothing else, despite the fact that other possibilities such as natural disaster are just as valid.

99.999% of all species on the planet are extinct, including FIVE mass extinction events. Are you telling me that these animals just POPPED into existence completely whole and while looking similar to an animal that came before it? Because, first I'd like to see evidence of this happening. I haven't seen any new species of animals pop into existence while I've been alive, and going by the fact that there has been 5 extinction events, this must be a regular occurrence throughout Earth's history. So how about you start off with the evidence for your side?

4. Extrapolation...
Evolutionists show instances of genuine evolution on a small scale and then extrapolate it to prove acts of evolution many orders of magnitude greater than what has been observed... while insisting its the "same thing". Sorry, bacteria evolving into nylon eating bacteria is evidence of evolution on that small scale. Nothing more, nothing less. To claim the same concept applies to the claim that the single cell evolved into much larger and complex life forms is a leap of imagination.

Stupid point. You do know that bacteria isn't a species right? There are MANY different species of bacteria and we HAVE shown that one species of bacteria has evolved into a new species of bacteria. This claim is just straight up wrong.

There are probably other ways in which evolutionists apply creative thinking and conjecture to present evolution as legitimate science, so hopefully other members can add to this list.

#32

No there isn't. Where is the evidence for YOUR version of events?

His evidence? The bible! Can't you tell the fossil record is just the devil out to confuse us? Lmao!

originally posted by: ZeroReady
a reply to: reploid

1. First the Cambrian Explosion was not rapid, it refers to a period of about 30 million years. We can observe changes in some species of this period in time frames of as little as 5 to 10 million years. But that is still plenty of time for evolution to do its thing.

2. Some things relating to ancient cannot yet be explained it's true. However we understand quite a bit, and a lot of hypotheses about ancient evolution can and have been tested. We know sexual reproduction is better than asexual, even though it costs more energy, because it is a better way of keeping up with the constant arms race going on in every living organism between disease and host.
Studies on the Mexican Topminnow show that when they breed asexually, they carry many more disease causing worms than when they breed sexually. We may not yet know how the earliest microorganisms evolved sexual reproduction, because they just don't fossilize that well. But we haven't stopped looking.

3. If fossils were the only things we had to go on, we wouldn't have nearly as complete a picture of the history of life on Earth as we now do. However thanks to work in genetics, we now know that all life is fundamentally the same. We can follow genomes back and clearly show that we all evolved from a common ancestor. Your analogy would be correct if all we do is simply look at the artifact with our eyes. But we can do so much more. Radioisotope dating, electron microscopy, and genetic testing can actually tell us facts about the past.

4. I'm afraid this can only be explained by time. It's just really really important to try and understand that we are talking about hundreds of millions of years. That is a long time. We know organisms change and adapt to their environment.

Man your nicer then me!!!!! Well played, actually trying to help and stuff! :p


Good job!

originally posted by: Necrose
the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs" or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a helluva more about medicine than we do today.

They did? That must be why the average life expectancy throughout history has been stagnant and then suddenly shot up these last 100 or so years?

We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

Um... What? Psychology is a science in its infancy. We have no idea if even half the diseases in the DSM-5 are even real diseases. We DO know however that body diseases really do exist and they really do kill people. So I'm not sure what this point is talking about.

btw, you just can't spell "THEIR" as "THERE".

Good job grammar police. But you know, if you are going to be a stickler about grammar, it's "by the way," not btw. Also you need to learn how to create proper paragraphs and capitalize the first letters of your sentences. So how about you leave the grammar alone?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Necrose
the funny thing is that there is no such thing as modern medicine, the medicine we are seeing today is a god damn boredom killing business making profit for the BIGpharma and their corporate greed, the pesky doctors prescribing drugs for their own profit and introducing the "new kind of drugs" or "new methods" via advertising and another marketing strategies gaining profit for another bunch of folks ... damn, the ancient people knew a helluva more about medicine than we do today.

They did? That must be why the average life expectancy throughout history has been stagnant and then suddenly shot up these last 100 or so years?

We don't cure the disease, we conceal and mask the symptoms. We already know that the vast, vast majority of illnesses comes from the mind, yet we decide to cure the body. Why?... Money.

Um... What? Psychology is a science in its infancy. We have no idea if even half the diseases in the DSM-5 are even real diseases. We DO know however that body diseases really do exist and they really do kill people. So I'm not sure what this point is talking about.

btw, you just can't spell "THEIR" as "THERE".

Good job grammar police. But you know, if you are going to be a stickler about grammar, it's "by the way," not btw. Also you need to learn how to create proper paragraphs and capitalize the first letters of your sentences. So how about you leave the grammar alone?

Screw it, beat up on my grammer all ya want. Hell I am from mississippi. :p. just leave the disinformation alone and I'm cool .

The only mistakes that are made by those who have thought deeply on most subjects and have a fairly deep understanding of the "theories" of things, is their failure to begin with "I believe" or "I think".

I believe I don't think I actually know anything I don't have first hand knowledge of.

And it don't make any difference anyway.

a reply to: ArtemisE

I don't care about your grammar. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone correcting your usage of there/their while at the same time cannot construct a proper paragraph, like spelling is the only thing important to understanding your point. At least with the there/their error, I can still read it well. Improper paragraph construction just makes your post look sloppy.

originally posted by: OpenEars123
a reply to: reploid

I heard in a conversation yesterday that Australia have found 9 new species of fish that are growing arms and legs.

Haven't had time to research it yet, anyone else heard this??


Thanks

Ah, it's not new news after all (from 2010)

Probably been discussed already, but here's the link anyway;
Fish with hands

Also, if there's a reason we don't yet fully understand evolution, it's because for hundreds of years Religionists were excommunicating, torturing, burning, and otherwise silencing anyone who offered a rational scientific explanation of the natural world.

a reply to: reploid

Exercise in creative thinking... Theory on how life has gotten to the point where it is today... Whatever you want to call it. I must say that it had to take some extremely creative thinking to piece the puzzle of life together.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ArtemisE

I don't care about your grammar. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone correcting your usage of there/their while at the same time cannot construct a proper paragraph, like spelling is the only thing important to understanding your point. At least with the there/their error, I can still read it well. Improper paragraph construction just makes your post look sloppy.

Sorry, I was replying to you, about him. Lol

Ya gotta hate how voice tone is lost in text. :p