Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: WoodcarverYour talking of scientism, not science. This is a common mistake.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

Science never claimed to make those claims anyways. It has always maintained that it is an answer to how not why. That is why things like the theory of evolution and god can coexist.

Saying 'science never made those claims' is extremely vague - science contains scientists and they often disagree. If you're suggesting that the fundamental forces aren't widely accepted within modern academia as the underlying forces of the entire universe, I'd say that you're wrong.

That's a shame because reality is VERY interesting. Especially the parts we don't understand. Maybe you should try looking at it a bit more in depth. Just like you say that all the answers cannot be reached externally, I can just as easily say that you too are missing the grander picture by only searching inward.

Why would you suggest that I'm only looking inward? You quote me and then come up with what appears to be - and I may be wrong - a typical pseudo-spiritual non-sequitur. What's a 'shame'? You say I should look at it a bit more in depth. What's 'it'?

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Please define scientism. My browser tells me it isn't even a word.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

Sorry, for us non-mistics all we have is evolution. I'm not going to debate your belief but how can you lecture us on something we do not have.

I didn't used to be a 'mystic'. I had an epiphany a few years ago.

Do I lecture a blind person on their inability to understand a sun set? No...

You are judging me by your own standards, I have no interest in your pride fuelled games of one-upmanship.

You are the mystic with special abilities to understand and we just need to believe you are right without having your same ability.

I offer you some truths. You, on the other hand, have said nothing. You've responded to my posts simply to engage in an ad hominem argument.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
Saying 'science never made those claims' is extremely vague - science contains scientists and they often disagree. If you're suggesting that the fundamental forces aren't widely accepted within modern academia as the underlying forces of the entire universe, I'd say that you're wrong.

The fundamental forces? You mean gravity, electromagnetic, strong force, and weak force? I'm pretty sure those are widely accepted across science.

No what I said is that science and the divine can coexist. Science makes ZERO claims about divinity. It can disprove various myths and legends of various religions, but it cannot DISPROVE god or gods. At least yet. So to even SUGGEST that science like evolution denies the divine is completely wrong.

Why would you suggest that I'm only looking inward? You quote me and then come up with what appears to be - and I may be wrong - a typical pseudo-spiritual non-sequitur. What's a 'shame'? You say I should look at it a bit more in depth. What's 'it'?

Well you are clearly denying evolution, so you are clearly not looking too deeply at evolution so there's that. But let's drop this line of thinking. It's irrelevant. How about you explain to us in detail why evolution isn't true?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
No. 'Try looking at it a bit more in depth'.

Please feel free to have the last word. Something tells me that would mean a lot to you.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Ok, willingly delude yourself. I don't care. Just don't be surprised when I correct you when you post incorrect information.

We don't need faith in experts. They happily publish their work. All of it. We can look at it and follow their procedures. If anything is contestable it is very quickly pointed out. It's kind of the point of science, To show your work. Where's yours so we can look at it?

So you don't believe in the words of scientists then? Not until you've reproduced their experiments. You've personally seen proof of evolution? No? I thought not. Will you ever ask to see proof? Your beliefs are unproven and of no benefit.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds


I offer you some truths. You, on the other hand, have said nothing. You've responded to my posts simply to engage in an ad hominem argument.

My point is you offer truths that only you with your mystical powers could understand as truths, and expect us to just go along....just because you say it....hmmmm What is it that you expect anyone to do?

I think television evangelists offer truths too.... so what truth did you offer that didn't come just from your mystical abilities?

a reply to: Xtrozero
I don't expect anything, I just made an offer- no strings. I'm not interested in having a fan club; or starting a political party or a new religion. Good luck in your life. I hope you find something of genuine worth.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: Xtrozero
I don't expect anything, I just made an offer- no strings. I'm not interested in having a fan club; or starting a political party or a new religion. Good luck in your life. I hope you find something of genuine worth.

Actually I do have something of genuine worth it is called my family.

This other stuff is just a pastime.

The problem I have is if we go down the path of intelligent design, then it is all still Gods work no matter what it is. I just do not see God as someone who would do simple parlor tricks for creations. Humans have a quizzical nature, we question everything, it must be a God given ability for us to use then. Science just validates our questions, science is also God given or we would not have it. We didn't create evolution we just asked questions, observed, studied nature around us, validated it with science and called it evolution. This doesn't take anything away from God in creating it. The HOW is just us asking questions and validating with science, we are not trying to answer the question of WHY, we will leave that up to you.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Agree2Disagree
Science isn't a court of law (which is a very flawed system in the first place).

originally posted by: Barcs
The courts have already ruled that evolution is a valid science and that ID is not.

Mr. Quote Mine at his best. Read my entire response then try again. I wasn't saying that the courts are what prove evolution or ID wrong. I was just taking it away as an excuse because he brought up the court of law and proving a case. It's kind of comical that you would assume that was my argument when I specifically said numerous times that it is about the objective evidence itself, not what a group of jurors determines. But even if you refer to the courts on this, their position is already clear, at least for now. So no matter what, it's a useless argument.

originally posted by: vasaga
Yes. But if I have a full bath tub, and I want to calculate how much time it took to fill it, I should not forget if it's leaking somewhere. Otherwise the time it takes to fill will never represent reality.

But if your bath tub fills up in 30 minutes with leaks, wouldn't it go without saying that there is enough time to fill without the leaks? The question is, "Is there enough time?", not "How long will it take?" If the tub fills up, there is enough time, whether there is a leak or not. Without the leaks it fills up faster, but the question is already answered, whether it takes 30 minutes or 2 weeks.

The fact that they don't play a role alive today doesn't mean that the calculation should not take into account what played a role in the past.

The problem is both are happening at the same time. If there is enough time to account for the diversity, then there is, and I'm pretty sure it does take into account what played a role in the past.

The calculations are based on genes. And genes play a role before any creature is born. And since they play a role before the creature is born, the genes that 'damage' the creature can not be forgotten.

Yes they can, because those creatures usually do not pass down genes, while the rest of their species do. They are irrelevant in the big picture.

originally posted by: Barcs
According to the scientific calculations, there is plenty of time for the results of mutations that we see on earth today.

The calculations might be right, but if the assumption list is incomplete or wrong, the whole thing collapses.

originally posted by: Barcs
Some folks are so quick to mention "Cambrian explosion" but do not back up their argument with anything whatsoever aside from catch phrases like, "It was so sudden".

Yeah. Just conveniently keep forgetting the long list of scientific papers stating that it was sudden. You still haven't explained why you think there is not enough time. The word "sudden" doesn't prove ANYTHING. It's a word that be relative as I have CLEARLY demonstrated already. Use a real argument with exact terminology. Start with 20 million years. That's an exact figure and one of the lower estimates for the cambrian explosion (others say 60-80 mil, so I'm giving you a huge benefit of the doubt here).

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: john666

It's right there in the very first paragraph.

Since 1988, Richard Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. He also found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species.

Here is richard lenski's home page you can contact him and tell him how he is wrong.
myxo.css.msu.edu...

The reason why he says that he "believes", that a new species of bacteria was created is because HE KNOWS, that he can not say that HE KNOWS that a new species of bacteria was created.

In another words, this bacterial line about which he says that he "believes", that it is a new species, CAN NOT BE, a new species, because this bacterial line can still reproduce with those other bacterial lines.

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: john666

It's right there in the very first paragraph.

Since 1988, Richard Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. He also found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species.

Here is richard lenski's home page you can contact him and tell him how he is wrong.
myxo.css.msu.edu...

The reason why he says that he "believes", that a new species of bacteria was created is because HE KNOWS, that he can not say that HE KNOWS that a new species of bacteria was created.

In another words, this bacterial line about which he says that he "believes", that it is a new species, CAN NOT BE, a new species, because this bacterial line can still reproduce with those other bacterial lines.

Thats not necesarily the only way to differentiate between species. The entire taxonomical model is being rethought as we speak.

When lenski says he believes it, he says that because of the overwhelming change that has taken place. The bac. That has gone through this process won't even be able to live in the same medium as the original strain. myxo.css.msu.edu...

There are a few very important factors that your comment does not take into account.

First: The experiment was done on bacteria contained in 12 flasks.....compare the number of bacteria living in those 12 flasks to all the single celled organisms living on the entire planet and you may realize that there are many more possibilities for traits to evolve than you realized.



Second: The flasks were likely stored in a controlled consistant environment as opposed to the to ever changing environment on earth that undoubtable would have exposed organisms to many different events and conditions that would push evolution in various directions, for example if the ecoli were to be split into two groups and one put in a hot and humid environment and the other in a cold arid environment and those two populations would likely yield very different adaptations



Third : Human DNA is much more complex than e.coli DNA and is more suseptable to mutation



Fourth: Humans reproduce sexually as opposed to asexually, again this allows for the selective mating process to drive evolution in certain directions

The 25 yrs of published articles goes on to say even after millions of generations there is no upward limit to the changes that can take place.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: john666

It's right there in the very first paragraph.

Since 1988, Richard Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time. He also found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species.

Here is richard lenski's home page you can contact him and tell him how he is wrong.
myxo.css.msu.edu...

The reason why he says that he "believes", that a new species of bacteria was created is because HE KNOWS, that he can not say that HE KNOWS that a new species of bacteria was created.

In another words, this bacterial line about which he says that he "believes", that it is a new species, CAN NOT BE, a new species, because this bacterial line can still reproduce with those other bacterial lines.

Thats not necesarily the only way to differentiate between species. The entire taxonomical model is being rethought as we speak.

During my biology classes, that was the only definition of difference between species.
And as far i know, that hasn't changed.
But if you have another definition of species, I am willing to hear it.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

We don't need faith in experts. They happily publish their work. All of it. We can look at it and follow their procedures. If anything is contestable it is very quickly pointed out. It's kind of the point of science, To show your work. Where's yours so we can look at it?

So you don't believe in the words of scientists then? Not until you've reproduced their experiments. You've personally seen proof of evolution? No? I thought not. Will you ever ask to see proof? Your beliefs are unproven and of no benefit.

There are scientists i trust and then there are scientists i don't care for at all. It has nothing to do with the person but their methods they use. I am a materials analyst. I understand the strict methods that are applied to work before it can be published. Then every lab within that field of study can see your work. They are happy to disect and reproduce these experiments. If there is anything contradictory found they will tear you apart. You can lose respect, the priveledge to publish, funding, or even your job depending on how severe your mistakes are. It happens all the time. So those who have been working a long time and have published 1000's of articles and are consistent with their methods and findings deserve that respect.

Do i have to reproduce every experiment? No, but i have reproduced enough to know the strict requirements. And i can tell when some one has no idea what they are talking about.

If evolution were untrue. Then there would be no change over time. We would be finding modern human bones from millions of years ago. There are plenty of tiny dino bones and even fossils of single cell organisms like cyanobacteria. But modern humans didn't come into the scene until about 250,000 years ago. If there were no change there would be dog bones, horse bones, cat bones, and lots of others. But what we do find are similar bones to all of these animals. And older bones that are similar to them.

If you want to disprove change over time you would have to show that humans have been the same for millions of years. Find a human bone the same age as a dino bone. You will win the nobel prize and have people throwing millions of dollars at you. You could do tv shows until you die. But nobody can because we evolved from similar forms into what we are today.

a reply to: john666

en.wikipedia.org...

Proof of this? It's an unfounded claim that needs to be trashed...(even though indoctrination can cause some to belief, it is most assuredly not "MOST"...)

Virtually every creationist or religious person I know has believed in their respective system since they were capable of believing. It far exceeds the amount that chose to believe later in life. Admittedly this is from my perspective, so it doesn't prove anything, but it certainly seems to fit the bill in most situations. I know there are other reasons, but being born and indoctrinated into it, is most likely most common reason people join a religion.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is the best I can find but it says that children are usually indoctrinated in the majority of faiths. I know some folks don't follow it as strictly as others, but Christians for example are baptized into their faith before they can even comprehend it. Since Christianity is the biggest religion on the planet, logic would say that most folks are indeed indoctrinated.

Evolution can also somewhat explain why religion exists...in that a pack of gorillas will have one dominant male that defends and runs the entire pack...He's their god....

It was also a huge survival mechanism during the olden days where folks were tortured and / or killed for having conflicting beliefs as well.

Even with all that.....you still cannot dismiss subjective evidence...not when it comes to such a topic as this anyways....

This topic is about somebody calling evolution an illogical conspiracy, so yeah, I can dismiss that because it proves nothing. When somebody attacks something with a foundation of solid evidence such as evolution and presents nothing but subjective evidence for their alternative, it shows complete lack of logic. When you believe in a certain faith, you are taking somebody's word for it, essentially. There is no comparison, it is night and day. One is faith and one is fact. They aren't on equal realms of possibility, and one doesn't even negate the other. I'm agnostic myself, but one thing I have learned over the years is that evolution is scientifically verified, so whether or not god exists has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Please define scientism. My browser tells me it isn't even a word.

Type into google:
define:scientism

You get:
sci·en·tism
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

And Wikipedia:

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

Source

I made a whole thread about it, and a bunch of people denied it exists.

a reply to: Barcs

I have no quarrels with evolution....I accept it as verified science.

I do however have a quarrel with someone that obviously has no valid reason to claim "MOST" religious people are indoctrinated into their beliefs.

There are no numbers to verify your claim....(if you find some, I want to see them...)

A2D