The Gullibility of Evolutionists

Nobody can prove I'm wrong since any contrary evidence is programmed and is part of the simluation to generate argument therefore I must be right!

Possibly So now what? Notice I didn't chuck it out the window because ya never know when you chuck something out the window, that you haven't just closed off your only escape route.

Originally posted by melatonin
Do you wanna discuss the science it contains? I'm willing. Tell me how it is related to intelligent design. Show me how it tests a prediction generated from an ID hypothesis.

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: and I assume you don't want to talk about the science in Behe & Snokes? I can get the article to you if you want to read it.

If Bigwhammy doesn't want to discuss or talk about it, that's his choice. However I would listen (although put it in simple terms -- I'm no microbiologist, I studied psychology). No need to send me a copy, I've obtained one myself (abstract below)

Gene duplication is thought to be a major source of evolutionary innovation because it allows one copy of a gene to mutate and explore genetic space while the other copy continues to fulfill the original function. Models of the process often implicitly assume that a single mutation to the duplicated gene can confer a new selectable property. Yet some protein features, such as disulfide bonds or ligand binding sites, require the participation of two or more amino acid residues, which could require several mutations. Here we model the evolution of such protein features by what we consider to be the conceptually simplest route-point mutation in duplicated genes. We show that for very large population sizes N, where at steady state in the absence of selection the population would be expected to contain one or more duplicated alleles coding for the feature, the time to fixation in the population hovers near the inverse of the point mutation rate, and varies sluggishly with the λ[t][h] root of 1/N, where λ is the number of nucleotide positions that must be mutated to produce the feature. At smaller population sizes, the time to fixation varies linearly with 1/N and exceeds the inverse of the point mutation rate. We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[8] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[9].

So how does this test for ID?

Originally posted by malcr
"Evolutionsts who think science is infallible" is a statement made up by yourself it is not a fact.

Yeah, that was my own opinion. A bridge, if you may, to promote a common ground. (sadly, bridge is burning it seems) Because there have been many cases where scientists were wrong. I suppose it would have been more accurate if I said "evolutionists who think scientists are infallible..."

I love this. Such a simple statement but so full of meaning.

Looking at simple forms like the snowflake, he noted that its "delicate sixfold symmetry tells us that order can arise without the benefit of natural selection". Kauffman says natural selection is about competition for resources and snowflakes are not alive -- they don't need it.

Originally posted by malcr
"Evolutionsts who think science is infallible" is a statement made up by yourself it is not a fact.

I don't think that is what Beachcoma meant at all. He was simply giving an example of two different extremes from both sides. He's not saying that is the way it is or the way he views it. He was actually going off of something I said so please give him a break. Not harping on you but you did twist his words and intent.

The problem is one of projection. Science does not operate on a system of faith. If one element of one branch of science is lacking, that does not discount Science as a whole, that branch of science, or even the one element that is lacking. Science is a system of investigation, of curiosity, of exploring, of gaining new knowledge and understanding how many things we yet don't know. Faith is the opposite: faith seems hell-bent on coming to one, singular, firm conclusion. About anything, whether it be heaven, the 'flood' or whether or not Jesus existed.

Science is based on collected evidence. Faith is based on intrinsically personal thoughts and beliefs, frequently bolstered by anecdotes which sometimes are counted as 'evidence.'

When there is any 'evidence' that the universe was created by a person named Yahweh then I will consider this against what I have learned and what I continue to learn. In the meantime, know this: you can not apply the mechanism by which you experience your faith to science. The two may sometimes coexist - sometimes even happily so. But they are not the same mechanism.

The is the huge fatal flaw that people who try to 'prove' the existence of God so often lead with. Nothing that follows from such a premise can hold much water, if any at all.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by sufusci
reply to post by Conspiriology

 

You completely misunderstand evolution. There is no "prime directive". Evolution is not a "thing", but a model formed by observing genetic change. Evolution is stateless.

Let me make it simple

what does it set out to prove.

May seem academic but their is a reason I am asking

- Con

The theory of evolution explains how organisms adapt over time to their environment.

It is a useful model, which allows us to make predictions about our many aspects of life on earth, including the phylogenetic tree, and by determining the rate of change in genes, gives us an estimate of the time between divergence of two genomes. We can then test this by comparing with other methods (geological, archaeological, physical etc) of determining divergence and test our hypothesis.

//sufu sci

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Here is a quote I highly agree with (based on my observations) from another poster.

Because atheism is the fervent 'religion' of peer reviewed scientists, they got themselves bottled up in a failed paradigm due to their fanaticism. You can't even touch the idea of the slightest deviation from Darwinism without getting flamed. This my friends is how science really works, by the agreement of the scientists, not necessarily by the evidence. Don't let facts get in the way of a good theory.

post by SevenThunders

I see your point. It must seem like there is a great conspiracy.

Please see it from my point of view: I KNOW the evidence is insurmountable. Its staggering how much evidence there is for evolution - truly staggering. But the problem is it would take most normal people 3+ years of study to even START grasping this. No scientist can attempt to give you the information you require to understand in less time, as it requires a great understanding of a lot of things, math, statistics, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics.

It really is that simple! I mean if I started talking about information theory of transcription starts sites, how many people would really understand what I was talking about or bother to look it up? I am pretty smart IQ wise and it took me over 2 years to really understand information theory.

It's like a mathematician working on a field's prize problem trying to explain it to me. He can make as many simplifications as he wants, but me as a layman will never truly understand.

I truly don't know how to solve this conundrum. It must be very frustrating for those who believe in creationism and see evolution as an attack on their beliefs. It must be very frustrating also to have a theory "taught" to you, in overview terms, and you being told it is fact, without being able to verify this for yourself.

Any ideas?

//sufu sci

faith seems hell-bent on coming to one, singular, firm conclusion. About anything, whether it be heaven, the 'flood' or whether or not Jesus existed.

Not exactly. This is where most of the problem arises, I think. When you refer to evolutionary science, you refer to the study of the origins of life, based on earlier texts written by accepted scholars. The ancient texts of our ancestors were doing the same thing.

Now what if one day, someone came along and threw ALL the current science away, rewrote everything regarding our origins from the ground up, initially based on an incorrect assumption, only to find decades later, that it was not true and that the premise of calling it untrue was itself incorrect. How would view that decision?

Our ancestors believed they had evidence as well. And whether or not the evidence may have been incorrect or incorrectly stated, all of it was thrown out! ALL OF IT. I just want that to sink in for you. ALLLL OF IT.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by riley
Except for the fact that the 'ID movement' was FUNDED by christian groups and was proven to be just a ploy to get religion into schools. The wedge document proved this without a doubt.

At least their methods were impressive. Their approaches are evolving! Irony!

reply to post by sufusci


The approach isn't evolving,
the data is coming in. Christians been beatin' this drum
for a very long time.

reply to post by Beachcoma

Yeah, that was my own opinion. A bridge, if you may, to promote a common ground. (sadly, bridge is burning it seems)

It is in more than a few less ethical soul's interests to keep that bridge burning.
They lose their power if there is respect and dialog between two sides.
Some THINK they are doing the right thing. They have married their view of the world to one thing and ONLY that one thing can be right. There are jokers like this on both sides.

Then there are those that are MUCH worse. And know what they are doing and why and seek some gain to this BS.

And I am not talking about any sort of organized conspiracy. Just individuals either blinded by their beliefs. Or ones that see profit in keeping this BS brewing.


[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Just wait, one of these fine days, all this is going
to be resolved. Maybe or maybe not in our lifetimes,
but it will be resolved.

So far the system has worked like this (it manipulates a well known feature of human bonding and mob mentality):

1. Inject a concept that supports the theory, regardless of its authenticity or reality. Sloppy scholarship doesn't matter when all parties are agreed beforehand and this is born out by any area of study you care to examine, whether it be science or alternative studies
2. Be sure the concept has the force of academia behind it by selecting spokesmen who are well established and respected, to represent it.
3. It doesn't matter if it's actually true, as long as the scholars in that field agree to support each other on the issue, and most will if the leaders in the theory are onboard
4. By the time it's finally discovered that the original studies were just sloppily tossed together nonsense to support the theory, too much personal and professional work will have passed to backtrack and start over and the mistake will be quietly swept under the rug, until the next faux pas, in which the entire cycle will repeat.

I don't mind telling you that there's nothing to indicate this hasn't been a problem throughout human history, but the issue at hand is always the same: The Halls of Truth are held up by falsehoods as much as by truths. And anyone that says differently, needs to seriously review history.

reply to post by undo


Undo, I know this is ATS. But seriously. I am not sure if you know any good scientists, but the one's I work with get excited at the possibility of "rewriting" the book. Friends of mine in certain disciplines have done so, in so called "dead science". Yes, it is hard to get published when you have an "out there" theory. That just means you make sure your experimental design has no flaws, is incontrovertible, and get independent replication.

This I believe is the beauty of science. I *want* to find something paranormal!

A few years ago, me and a few colleagues looked at the pear project. We thought, wow, cool idea, so over a few weekends we built our own and replicated some of the experiments. We found no effects. But that is cool! Science is accessible to all (who have the passion) and we can, and DO test and verify previous results. Many a famous man has been made by disproving older accepted theory.

These days, with the barrier to replication vastly reducing (building our RNG's for example cost me a pittance), the quality of science is increasing because fakes can't hide for long!

The only people who believe science is flawed are those who aren't actually doing it. Doesn't that say something to you? Its like a non-christian trying to tell you what the bible means - he just doesn't have perspective!

reply to post by sufusci



So people cease to be people once they become scientists is what your essentially saying there man. Sounds like the old thoughts on when one enters a priesthood. And we all see how false THAT is.
I have learned to have no faith in humanity regardless their beliefs.

With science and religion it is still a guy telling me he knows something for sure.
Usually those guys have ulterior motives.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Many a famous man has been made by disproving older accepted theory.

He wouldn't make it if they weren't willing to listen and they wouldn't be willing to listen if it meant too many living, respected scientists would be professionally hurt by it.

I've seen many well written, provoking, new ideas advanced by people in science who were locked out because the concepts didn't support Einstein's theory of relativity or if it did support it, not in a way that was popular because some living scientist of reknown would be professionally devastated by it.

That's crazy. They need loosen up the reins a bit so the other scientists don't take it as such a professional blow if they happen to be proven wrong. No wonder science moves so slowly

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
reply to post by sufusci

 

So people cease to be people once they become scientists is what your essentially saying there man. Sounds like the old thoughts on when one enters a priesthood. And we all see how false THAT is.
I have learned to have no faith in humanity regardless their beliefs.

I didn't mean that scientists are like priests, but surely, like everything these days, they are experts in their respective fields. If you are a mechanic, you are a specialist. Don't come to me to fix you car - its likely to come out with some cool enhancements that don't work, as I love to experiment!

With science and religion it is still a guy telling me he knows something for sure.
Usually those guys have ulterior motives.

Yeah, I can see how you might see it that way. I do feel there is a difference. Every claim that I make is testable. Does a random number generator alter its number distribution in response to human thought? Does the dna phylogeny match up with carbon dating fossil evidence? Do humans respond to drug X better than placebo? If we push this object with X force, does it roll over the hill?

My understanding of the world is based by asking questions, making models and testing them again and again. Religious people start with an answer. You have to admit it's a little different.

Let me give you an example of why it's wrong:

Our government does not have this problem.
The scientists it hires to discover and work on top secret projects,
are not beholden to anyone but the project itself and the gov.
They can step on toes all over the place, because those
toes will never know they've been stepped on. As a result,
the government is ahead of the public, technologically by something like 50 years.
You and I don't hear about these discoveries for the obvious reasons:
national security, technological superiority and keeping the status
quo in the fields of science as unconnected to the reality of how
the universe functions, as possible.

so it's in their vested interest as well, to keep the field of science
as deeply entrenched as possible in partially correct theories or totally
incorrect theories.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by undo]

reply to post by sufusci

Yeah, I can see how you might see it that way. I do feel there is a difference. Every claim that I make is testable. Does a random number generator alter its number distribution in response to human thought? Does the dna phylogeny match up with carbon dating fossil evidence? Do humans respond to drug X better than placebo? If we push this object with X force, does it roll over the hill?

Yes but science has gone beyond that. And you are relying on human beings with all their ability to lie, cheat, play politics with EVERYTHING, etc etc etc etc.

And putting your unswerving trust in them. That is a power. A power that can corrupt. As history has shown time and time again.

My understanding of the world is based by asking questions, making models and testing them again and again. Religious people start with an answer. You have to admit it's a little different.

For some yes. They NEVER test their beliefs. But many do.
And science cannot tell us if we have a soul or not.
It is based PURELY in the physical.
The god of the gaps as sooo many atheists like to call it is NOT some stop gap attempt to keep belief.
It is the evolution of belief in something we cannot taste, touch, smell, or see.

Just thought I'd add this.
I am not Christian. I don't think they have the right idea AT ALL. But. I respect the fact that they believe that. And I am willing to tolerate the ones that tolerate me.

[edit on 5-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

(p.s. it's only proof to me. i couldn't prove it to you. just thought i should mention that!)