Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Let's say it is an elephant in the room. What does that mean, then? Let's say that the Cambrian Explosion totally debunks evolutionary theory as we know it. What then? Those are the questions that no one will answer. Since there are no answers there. Then I'm sticking with Science and evolution.

a reply to: Trolloks

"The soup, as you said, there is a very slim chance that this could happen, however there is still a chance, and it is only logical considering the number of plannets out there that it must of happen at least once."


If this were true why cant this be shown scientifically? Also, since we obviously live on a planet that can support a massive amount of life why cant we see examples of new life popping up all over the place? I am certain evolution is false. What is to replace it? The answer would help complete me!

reply to: liejunkie01
I do apologize.
I have found that sometimes, to get a bully to back off, you have to show the other person how it feels to get belittled.

Maybe these guys just don't like the results that keep getting published, and it does not fit their little agenda.

What about the results that don't get published?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Because the explosion challenges the notion of natural selection being sufficient for the sudden increase in the amount of species, diversity and informational development.

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: GetHyped

The biggest elephant in the room is the cambrian explosion.

The only elephant is the enormous difficulties involved in studying the ancient past of living things.

Palaeontologists are perfectly aware of the problems in studying something like the Cambrian explosion. They must make their inferences from the rocks. They are aware that the fossils do not come with convenient labels with dates. Yet they still work within these limits in order to learn as much as they possibly can. This means that they must accept the limits of their method. But does it mean that they should give up, that nothing can be learned at all?..
No, of course not.

This is where we differ in how we approach these difficulties. You seem to be suggesting, as so many creationists seem to, that we simply throw up our hands in despair of ever knowing anything about the ancient past and just give up. I think that is rather pathetic. I also think that it represents a rather naive view of how scientists operate.

Rather than humility, what you are advocating is a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. I can't see how that can possibly be a good thing.

a reply to: vasaga

How? Do you really think 40 million years is "sudden"?

a reply to: vasaga

Well as it stands there is no compelling evidence to say that a god or gods definitely exists. So I cannot back the creationism stance. There is simply no evidence for it. Though, there is also no evidence to say that a god or gods couldn't exist either. So I stay ambivalent about it. So if you want to take that leap of faith and say that a god exists, I don't care. I'm just not convinced on the matter. The thing is, you just have to accept that this god or gods (probably) used the big bang to create the universe and most likely used evolution to develop life. I guess the answer of abiogenesis and biogenesis is answered there, so I didn't mention it, but life probably originated on earth from a common answer originating in the sea. This would be HOW the god or gods created the universe and seeded and developed life. Anything that denies this reality is wrong, there is just too much evidence to support this account of things.

a reply to: Barcs
After reading your comment I tried looking myself. You are right, hard to find the details.
I will continue looking or find an alternative.
Thanks

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Because the explosion challenges the notion of natural selection being sufficient for the sudden increase in the amount of species, diversity and informational development.

The time span of the Cambrian explosion was more like 70-80 million years, life being tenacious, managed to fill up the many new niches created by an ever more stable environment . Creationists always seem to conveniently leave out the time span of the Cambrian explosion and just call it an explosion to give the illusion to laymen that it all happened like overnight.
If you have such an enormous knowledge of the Cambrian Explosion that you can use your immense knowledge of this subject to prove that biologists are all wrong about biology, please tell us, in your own words, what the C.E. actually was.

the way i see this whole thing is,

genesis is an overview, including how life started.

science hasn't figured out how life started but insists we are the result of that 1 living cell. which scientists can't duplicate, btw. wow, imagine that.

now, after a couple hundred years of thinking about the universe scientifically, we have it alllllllll worked out.

after 2 bil years of life being on this planet, evolution did it. time did it. that is the claim, i hear.

there is no God so it must be time. right?

i find the arrogant science fanboies as pathetic as the YEC'ers.

the fanboies hijack creation then deny genesis.
"errr...we don't know but it didn't happen like that" "that's crazy!" "ignorant" "mythology!"

but 1 little cell built a global ecosystem by accident. cool. my, aren't we lucky?

originally posted by: tsingtao
science hasn't figured out how life started but insists we are the result of that 1 living cell. which scientists can't duplicate, btw. wow, imagine that.

now, after a couple hundred years of thinking about the universe scientifically, we have it alllllllll worked out.

Hey guy that is a contradiction in terms. You just get done saying science hasn't figured something out then you say that science has it all figured out. Which is it?

after 2 bil years of life being on this planet, evolution did it. time did it. that is the claim, i hear.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that after 2 billion years after life being on the planet evolution kicked in? Because that isn't true. Maybe you could elaborate on your point a bit better.

there is no God so it must be time. right?

Now I just got done saying that god and science can coexist. Why are you insisting that they cannot?

i find the arrogant science fanboies as pathetic as the YEC'ers.

the fanboies hijack creation then deny genesis.
"errr...we don't know but it didn't happen like that" "that's crazy!" "ignorant" "mythology!"

Well until you produce the evidence that these stories really happened then it remains mythology. If you just produce the evidence then I'll be happy to believe it as truth. That is why I believe evolution is true. Don't get mad at us because you can't produce the evidence.

but 1 little cell built a global ecosystem by accident. cool. my, aren't we lucky?

Sure why not? Chance is a pretty crazy thing when you start thinking in really large numbers. I know that it is tough to conceptualize numbers with many zeros behind them, but a universe as big as the one we can see is already large enough that life inevitably exists elsewhere, and if it is even larger, there could be whole other races of humans out there. It is a statistical inevitability. So you deriding chance like it is something that is impossible because it is so low is foolish because your mind isn't conceptualizing how large the numbers at work are.

It always boils down to the "something" from "nothing" argument .....Something had to create it.

Ergo, God.

So, in past debates because of my newly found athiesim, (from Catholicism) I'm told that SOMETHING HAD TO CREATE THE MATTER FOR THE BIG BANG! That something, is GOD.

So I would reply: Ok, who/what created God?

I would get told: God is OMNIPOTENT! He has always existed.

I would say: Why couldn't the universe have just always existed, forever expanding and contracting?

Often, this is where the conversation would get weird.

It's great that we can have our own beliefs, but sometimes, beliefs don't make facts. Science doesn't care what you believe. But I would never kill someone for not believing in science.

a reply to: tsingtao



Another creationist dedicated to semantic fallacies..Shocking.
Sometimes I really wonder if it's worth talking to creationist at all. Either they are not trying to be right, or they simply lack the mental capacity to do so.

The only people claiming to have "it alllllllll worked out" are the scientifically illiterate religious zealots. Science does not claim to have all the answers, science follows the evidence to find answers to questions about matters of objective reality, there exists only one discipline with a proven track record of success...science.

Just finished reading the original post. I must say that I am incredibly impressed by your intellect. I have spent years studying science, with a strong interest in cosmology and also biology, at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Until I read your post, I was impressed with the incredible complexity and elegance of the universe and life and overwhelmed at how much we do know and how much much much more we don't. If I had only read this post first I could have saved myself so much work.

Imagine, you just "looked at the science" and decided it was all wrong. I imagine you must have gone through the data and the math and found those problems every one else missed. Seriously, it is an impressive intellectual feat that leaves me in total awe. Imagine, i never even thought to consider all that was just a ploy to discredit your religion.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the 2.7K background radiation issue and how that fails to prove the big bang.

Thank you once again for enlightening me.

SOLD!

After reviewing the science behind evolution I have come to the following conclusion: Evolution is a conspiracy created by those who have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible. The science behind evolution is a such a farce that this is the only possible logical scenario. Consider the following theories presented from evolution: - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wonder what you think of this?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: tsingtao
science hasn't figured out how life started but insists we are the result of that 1 living cell. which scientists can't duplicate, btw. wow, imagine that.

now, after a couple hundred years of thinking about the universe scientifically, we have it alllllllll worked out.

Hey guy that is a contradiction in terms. You just get done saying science hasn't figured something out then you say that science has it all figured out. Which is it?

after 2 bil years of life being on this planet, evolution did it. time did it. that is the claim, i hear.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that after 2 billion years after life being on the planet evolution kicked in? Because that isn't true. Maybe you could elaborate on your point a bit better.

there is no God so it must be time. right?

Now I just got done saying that god and science can coexist. Why are you insisting that they cannot?

i find the arrogant science fanboies as pathetic as the YEC'ers.

the fanboies hijack creation then deny genesis.
"errr...we don't know but it didn't happen like that" "that's crazy!" "ignorant" "mythology!"

Well until you produce the evidence that these stories really happened then it remains mythology. If you just produce the evidence then I'll be happy to believe it as truth. That is why I believe evolution is true. Don't get mad at us because you can't produce the evidence.

but 1 little cell built a global ecosystem by accident. cool. my, aren't we lucky?

Sure why not? Chance is a pretty crazy thing when you start thinking in really large numbers. I know that it is tough to conceptualize numbers with many zeros behind them, but a universe as big as the one we can see is already large enough that life inevitably exists elsewhere, and if it is even larger, there could be whole other races of humans out there. It is a statistical inevitability. So you deriding chance like it is something that is impossible because it is so low is foolish because your mind isn't conceptualizing how large the numbers at work are.

ok krazyshot, here goes;

1) both, last line is sarcasm for all the hard line neo-darwinists.

2) life has been on this planet for 2 bil yrs +/-, what would life be like without all the extinction events? last one was 65mil ya. we are the result of that. so, after 2 bil yrs and 5 EE's, we get intelligence and technological beings. (us)
as far as we know, that is.
why? are we a new trend after an EE? what if something wipes us out along with almost everything else, tomorrow.
in another 65 mil yrs, will there be another intelligent species walking around?
ok, nuff of that.

3) hell, i'm with you on the coexisting of God and science and my comment was for both side of the aisle.
i just think inserting "time" instead of "God" in the gaps is the same thing. lol, with a head of cabbage and some salt and 6-8 weeks, i can have sauerkraut! but it's still cabbage!
YEC's disturb me as much as the deniers.

4) was light made with the big bang or did that come at a later time? "let there be light" is a famous quote.
is it fairly accurate for day 1? lucky guess?
i guess it would need "space" for it to be seen or even exist, right?
space had to expand faster than light? how does that work?
i'm trying to come to grips with both things that i believe in. creation and science, up until the advent of life.
after that is a whole different ball of wax to discuss. like in this thread! lol!

5) i realize how big the #'s get and i have no doubts about other life out there, at all.
but the #'s are bigger for life to start by accident/chance than anything we can imagine.
that's why i believe it was created.
evolution? call me an agnostic, i guess.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: tsingtao



Another creationist dedicated to semantic fallacies..Shocking.
Sometimes I really wonder if it's worth talking to creationist at all. Either they are not trying to be right, or they simply lack the mental capacity to do so.

The only people claiming to have "it alllllllll worked out" are the scientifically illiterate religious zealots. Science does not claim to have all the answers, science follows the evidence to find answers to questions about matters of objective reality, there exists only one discipline with a proven track record of success...science.

i'm not a creationist or a YE'r. or a zealot, dude. but you maybe right about them, same as the science fanboies.

science has it's map, now it just has to fill in allllllll the blanks! especially regarding evolution, right?

99% of species have died out, over the course of what, 2-3 billion years? is that the number agreed upon?
did they really die out or evolve?

we claim we can trace the big bang back 14 billion years but don't know what happened to kick it off.
same with life on earth, but still don't know how it started.

as i read someones post that basically said, how it started didn't matter, "what difference does it make!" sorry.
i thought, of course it matters! it matters a whole lot how it started.

a reply to: tsingtao
Exactly!
How do you grow a tree?
You need a seed or a cutting there has to be a beginning.
As of now the evolutionary tree of life is growing from nothing. It has no beginning, no seed so to speak.
The further they go back the more questions they have to answer. The earliest life as of yet was found to be too coplex to be the fabled LUCA.
Then we also have the comb jelly which has a nervous system and results are showing that it possibly predates the sponge. How's that work?