Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We are not discussing intelligent design here. We are saying either life changes or it does not. Is all life forms stuck in some bubble of zero change?

Organisms adapting to environmental variables does not equate to random chance mutations are responsible for the origin of species on earth. It's a vast extrapolation, totally reliant on faith. It is faith because there is a lack of evidence to prove those types of mechanisms are even possible.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

You claim "evolution was stagnant for billions of years." But that's not what evolution claims.
You admitted that sickle disease have shortened the lifespan of people in Africa. Evolution should have made them stronger and able to live longer.

This above is rather incorrect. Sickle disease did make them stronger. Those without it died and didn't have babies. Those with sickle cell lived on,
overcoming malaria to have babies. If you can not even see this then there is zero hope in our conversations.

I even explained why they die younger and why it doesn't matter to evolution if they die past the child bearing years.

originally posted by: cooperton

Organisms adapting to environmental variables does not equate to random chance mutations are responsible for the origin of species on earth. It's a vast extrapolation, totally reliant on faith. It is faith because there is a lack of evidence to prove those types of mechanisms are even possible.

So go on and finish the rest of my posts. Did earth start with millions of other species already in their advance state that died out? Do new species magically appear in the 10,000s to replace others that die out? There is no perpetual cycle of life with your view.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yet again, the claims of "evolution" all go against the laws of physics.

1. Evolution tells us all living life forms should have become better, more efficient, and stronger.

The law of probability tells us it is impossible for any and all life forms to exist as they do on Earth, since the simplest life form on Earth needs over 400 proteins to exist and the law of probability tells us anything which occurs over 1 in 10>104 will never occur naturally or by accident, and just 1 protein would occur once in 10>104 by accident.

2. Evolution tells us every living organism should have evolved to become more efficient, better, and stronger.

The Second law of Thermodynamics tells us entropy increases continually making every life form more flawed with time, not better or more efficient.

3. Science tells us "matter and energy can never be created or destroyed." Yet the Big Bang states creation came out of nothing, aka Creatio Ex Nihilo.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Entire species do not evolve the same way, that is not how evolution works. If it was evolution wouldn't explain the different species at all.

Wtf are you even talking about? You can't even put together a cogent sentence, let alone a rational argument.

Back to school son.

The reason you can't provide a source as it's an obvious strawman.

Source? What source, pray tell, would you recognize as authoritative in this regard? God maybe?

Rotflmao!

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl

I checked back on where you said Trillions.

"Trillions of identical RANDOM variations occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY in a large number of the same species"

So no you weren't talking about cumulative changes.

Ummmm... are you dense?

It is the trillions of identical random mutations occurring over millions of years... not trillions 'all at the same exact time'.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


1. Evolution tells us all living life forms should have become better, more efficient, and stronger.

No it doesn't...in fact a lot of evolutionary traits are down right bad, and help the species to die out when situations happen that those bad traits become an issue. Your thought process on this is like a simple line of reasoning, suck in some broken record scenario of really bad music.

The law of probability tells us it is impossible for any and all life forms to exist as they do on Earth, since the simplest life form on Earth needs over 400 proteins to exist and the law of probability tells us anything which occurs over 1 in 10>104 will never occur naturally or by accident.

Jesus, do you read anything, or even try to comprehend what someone says. I explained already how you are trying to apply probability is wrong.

OK I'm done with you two... Not worth the effort, enjoy...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Source? What source, pray tell, would you recognize as authoritative in this regard? God maybe?

Rotflmao!

So you think yourself more intelligent than Einstein or Michu Kaku?



Greater minds than yours or mine say differently.

Not to mention the fact I proved "evolution" goes against every law of physics.

But please go ahead and keep laughing. It doesn't tells us your argument is sound or true.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don’t even know what evolution is. Efficency is arguably correct but everything else is wrong.

It’s not some eugenics superman scheme. It’s gradual mutation to adapt to the environment. Humans have eyes to see but if the world suddenly became shrouded in perpetual darkness then over time (a lot of time) whatever evolved from humans would likely lose the eyes as they aren’t needed anymore in that environment. Over more time other changes would develop to better suit such an environment. Like better hearing or sonar or whatever.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Ah, so insults are your proof. Got it.

Science is wrong, evolution is right... Got it...

According to you, and evolution proponents, the laws of probability are not real, the second law of thermodynamics/aka entropy, etc are not real...

Got it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

This has nothing to do with God. It is called the the God theory because it would be a theory to explain everything, not that it is proving there is a God or a theory God uses, or even if saying God theory you believe in an actual God to use it.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: tanstaafl

So you think yourself more intelligent than Einstein or Michu Kaku?

Not at all... why would you think so?

Greater minds than yours or mine say differently.

Say differently. What do they say differently from what I'm saying?

Not to mention the fact I proved "evolution" goes against every law of physics.

This is precisely what I've been saying... were you not paying attention?

But please go ahead and keep laughing. It doesn't tells us your argument is sound or true.

Since you don't even seem to grok that I've been saying that the theory that all life on earth 'evolved' from some primordial ooze is essentially impossible, it seems that you are arguing with someone else...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Ah, so insults are your proof. Got it.

Science is wrong, evolution is good... Got it...

Where is the insult? You keep repeating the same line of illogic over and over never trying to understand anything else said. I have heard your stupid 1 time in 10>104 that you and Cooperton have used dozen of times with each time it is explained to you why your use of it is incorrect. So, either you just can't comprehend or you just do not want to.

I'll sit back and wait for the 747 theory that you guys will put forth any post now too.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Since you don't even seem to grok that I've been saying that the theory that all life on earth 'evolved' from some primordial ooze is essentially impossible, it seems that you are arguing with someone else...

In any case life needs to start somewhere right?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

This has nothing to do with God. It is called the the God theory because it would be a theory to explain everything, not that it is proving there is a God or a theory God uses, or even if saying God theory you believe in an actual God to use it.

It has everything to do with God. Even Michu Kaku states that science proves God exists.

OVERVIEW
In this Big Think video, Dr. Michio Kaku explains why he believes in a universal intelligence and describes "God" as a mathematician and as “cosmic music.” “I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence,” Kaku says. “To me it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.” “The final solution resolution could be that god is a mathematician,” says Kaku. “The mind of god, we believe, is cosmic music. The music of strings resonating through 11-dimensional hyperspace.”
...

Of course professor Michu Kaku has his own bias as to who God is. Meanwhile he does not believe in the God of the bible, he does believe there is a higher intelligence/God that made everything that exists, and science agrees up to the point in which Professor Michu Kaku imposes his own bias as to exactly who God is.

Opinions aside, God does exist, and science proves it. Likewise science disproves Darwin's theory of evolution.

Science supports creation, and science debunks evolution.

a reply to: tanstaafl

If I was wrong then apologies. But you did write and I quote:

originally posted by: tanstaafl
...
Source? What source, pray tell, would you recognize as authoritative in this regard? God maybe?

Rotflmao!

Unless you made a mistake excerpting the comments of whom you were responding to?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
Your thought process on this is like a simple line of reasoning, suck in some broken record scenario of really bad music.
...

Jesus, do you read anything, or even try to comprehend what someone says. I explained already how you are trying to apply probability is wrong.

OK I'm done with you two... Not worth the effort, enjoy...

So the above is no insult? You want to impose your opinion. But there is no OPINION in how the laws of physics work.

Evolution claims all life forms should evolve to become better, more efficient, stronger. But the contrary is what happens.

You falsely claim my arguments are simple and you can debunk them. But the only thing you have debunked are your own opinions.

The theory of evolution starts by claiming that life came out of non-life, that the Universe came to being out of nothing by chance, when science itself states matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Creation states something existed before the Big Bang, and that something is God, an eternal and higher intelligence that made and shaped life and everything that exists.

Science proves the existence of God, and science disproves Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

originally posted by: Toothache
a reply to: Randyvine2

Evolution is a fact ...

For years the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.” Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times!

At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind.

Evolutionists today use the same approach as the Pharisees in Jesus' time: ‘Believe as we do,’ they say. ‘All competent scientists believe evolution. All intelligent people believe it. Only the uneducated and the ignorant don’t believe it.’ By such intimidation and mental bullying, masses of people are herded into the evolutionists’ camp. They know nothing of the weaknesses and inadequacies of evolutionary theory or its unsound speculations and hypothesized impossibilities​—such as the origin of life from inanimate chemicals. (a.k.a. the chemical evolution theory of life and the hypothesis of abiogenesis, or simply chemical evolution; i.e it is most definitely a part of the large set of evolutionary philosophies and storylines, i.e. part of the topic "evolution", especially in the context of this thread) So they are swept along by the repetitious mantras recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work. They did in Jesus’ day; they do today.

This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay). It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

Just to be clear, many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name implies what many scientists assert​—that these minute changes furnish the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has observed, which they call macroevolution.

You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved​—by means of “extremely slight modifications”—​into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big changes over long periods of time?’* [While the word “species” is used frequently in this article, it should be noted that this term is not found in the Bible book of Genesis, which uses the much more inclusive term “kind.” Often, what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.]

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:

1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.*

2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.

3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be considered a fact?

Can Mutations Produce New Species?

... Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig ...

Source: Is Evolution a Fact? (Awake!—2006)

I've been through the facts concerning mutations and the details Lönnig shared concerning what they are capable of in regards to the (macro)evolutionary storyline a couple times before on this forum so I won't bother with it this time. It was primarily just meant to clarify that when I evaluate the claim that "evolution is a fact" or say something in response to it, I am considering the claims concerning what has been termed "macroevolution". Proof or evidence of what has been termed "microevolution" is not proof or evidence for the statement that "evolution is a fact" said in the context of a discussion about both Darwin's idea involving common descent ("fish into amphibians and apes into men") and the chemical evolution theory of life, i.e. the topic of the origin of life, whether that happened by creation or evolution (chance and natural mindless processes).

It's a trick you see, to point to examples of what is merely called (micro)evolution, and think of that as showing that evolution is a fact. Or use that in defense of the slogan when called out on it (or feeling called out on it). When the discussion about evolution was never about the fact that "the descendants of living things may change slightly" (misleadingly referred to as "microevolution"). Those who argue against evolutionary teachings, do not contest that. The contest is whether this is evidence for what has been termed macroevolution, incl. Darwin's ideas about common descent. And to see why it isn't, you need to look into the details of what has been observed (often through experimentation) regarding these slight changes over time. And that's what evolutionary propagandizers don't want you to pay any attention to, those inconvenient facts that are not useful to them. "They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others." (from the article in my sig.)

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation (Law of recurrent Variation)

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Science doesn't prove God exists. Even under the best circumstances all science could prove is that there is an intelligence behind certain 'events' in our universe.
God is not a scientific term. It doesn't have any definition, it's purely subjective. Science can only and has to deal with objective objects, everything else wouldn't be science.
You can certainly have interpretation of data and/or theory that make it likely, but that doesn't mean much.
Also where would you look for the interference of that intelligence in our observable range? MRI? Radar? Is there a chemical footprint?

Evolution on the other hand is just a beautiful masterpiece of human intelligence at work. It has set the standard of how a good theory has to be. And rightfully so.
Is it a work in progress? Of course because:
That is science
Nobody is under the delusion there would be anything we humans just got figured out perfectly. Except you religious folk.
That's why you can't and you won't win the battle. Because a healthy human mind will always want to know. Enjoy to figure stuff out.
And religion is... denial, avoidance, detachment, locked-in.
Your need to hold on to the bible and mental pictures from thousands of years ago is (imo) symptom of a 'disease'.
It hasn't always been that way. Spiritual and scientific used to be one and the same at some point.
But now it is because of you religious people that we can't research anything spiritual, like the consciousness, or the relationship between intelligence and information.

Because you do what you just did: MK says God, so it's proven, because he is a famous science-PR-guy. But of course his interpretations of what God means is false because bible.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

We are not discussing intelligent design here. We are saying either life changes or it does not. Is all life forms stuck in some bubble of zero change?

originally posted by: cooperton

Organisms adapting to environmental variables does not equate to random chance mutations are responsible for the origin of species on earth. It's a vast extrapolation, totally reliant on faith. It is faith because there is a lack of evidence to prove those types of mechanisms are even possible.

There's the 'trick' I was talking about in my previous comment (in Xtrozero's post, not Cooperton's). In this case it's used to lower the bar or burden of proof, as if proving that life changes now somehow proves (or is evidence for) evolution (or that evolution is a fact). As well as pretend that anyone arguing against evolution has to prove that life does not change, as if that was being contended when one contends with evolutionary philosophies. I say "pretend", cause I find it somewhat hard to believe that Xtrozero, after all previous conversations, still is not aware that that is not being contended, it's not the issue here whether life changes or not. It remains a blatant misrepresentation of the real issues with evolutionary philosophies and what is actually being contended (also in relation to the statement that 'evolution is a fact', as discussed in my previous comment).