Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

A seed planted in the ground "evolves" into a fruit or tree or flower or bush. A caterpillar "evolves" into a butterfly. A baby "evolves" into a child which "evolves" into an adolesent, who "evolves" into a teen, who "evolves" into an adult....

Am I the only one confused here? I'd say your reached "conclusion" in general...is wrong. And flawed.

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds
a reply to: WoodcarverYour talking of scientism, not science. This is a common mistake.

It's only considered scientism when you are trying to apply science to something that science cannot reach. This topic is most definately in the scope of science. You have literally failed with every one of your posts. That is amazingly consistent.

sci·en·tism
Pronunciation: ˈsī-ən-ˌti-zəm
Function: noun
Date: 1870
1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist 2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
A seed planted in the ground "evolves" into a fruit or tree or flower or bush. A caterpillar "evolves" into a butterfly. A baby "evolves" into a child which "evolves" into an adolesent, who "evolves" into a teen, who "evolves" into an adult....

Am I the only one confused here? I'd say your reached "conclusion" in general...is wrong. And flawed.

Sorry but none of those things are evolution either. Plants develop or grow, people develop or grow up. The process a caterpillar goes through to become a butterfly is metamorphosis.

I know your heart was in the right place though.

Evolution requires reproduction.

Indoctrination is the only way to come to religion. You don't find religion in nature. You only hear about it from other people or by reading from religious texts. Thats why for such a long time religions were geographically separated. You wouldn't find a christian or a budhist spring up in an african village or in a native american tribe. The majority of religiously minded people hear about it from their families at a very young age because parents or family believe in it. Where did you learn about religion? If you learned from your family or another person, they indoctrinated you. I would have a talk with them if i were you. The word Indoctrination seems to deserve the negative connotation associated with it but if you were a boy/girl scout, you were indoctrinated by them too. If you went to school, guess what? They indoctrinated you too.

in·doc·tri·nate
inˈdäktrəˌnāt/
verb
verb: indoctrinate; 3rd person present: indoctrinates; past tense: indoctrinated; past participle: indoctrinated; gerund or present participle: indoctrinating
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
"broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses"
synonyms: brainwash, propagandize, proselytize, reeducate, persuade, convince, condition, program, mold, discipline; More
archaic
teach or instruct (someone).
"he indoctrinated them in systematic theology"
Origin
early 17th century (formerly also as endoctrinate ): from en-1, in-2 ‘into’ + doctrine + -ate3, or from obsolete indoctrine (verb), from French endoctriner, based on doctrine ‘doctrine.’

Notice the word proseletyize under synonyms

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

It's only considered scientism when you are trying to apply science to something that science cannot reach.

Is it really? Says who? The 'experts' that save you the impossible task of forming an original thought?

This topic is most definately in the scope of science.

Well it's great that all these scientists are working so hard to prove this fruitless concept. I can't wait to see this proof. That is what science does, isn't it? Proves things? Have you seen this proof? Do you ever expect to? Will you ever ask to see it? No - and you don't need to. Such is the strength of your faith.

You have literally failed with every one of your posts. That is amazingly consistent.

Failed? What did you assume I was trying to achieve? Seek the approval of the petty and small minded?

Says the definition of the word. You see that i posted the def. you can read what it says.

Yes i have seen the proof and i brought it here for you to see. Did you look at it?

Would you care to pick out one of the articles that have been brought here as a show of proof for discussion? Or are you going to just keep asserting that there is no proof? Do you think animals have been the same forever? And that no change ever occurs?

At least comment on why any of this is so hard to believe. Not just your assertions that they are not. You have not given even one reason why this can't be true. Look back at your posts. You know, actual reasons. Maybe tell us what special knowledge you can bring to this topic. Or why thousands of biologists are wrong, and you are right? What do you do for a living that gives you such special insight that no other biologist can see?

originally posted by: stuff1


Not true I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I was never given the other side of the story. If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist. Some people who go to an "Origins" thread must be at least be open to other possibilities.

Sounds to me like you are weak of mind and easily influenced. These debates will get you nowhere, your premise is weak and based on a work of fiction written thousands of years ago. I openly invite you to the church of Dr. Seuss, we are adamant that one fish two fish red fish blue fish created everything 50 years ago, and we can back that up through the scriptures written by our saint cat in the hat. Down with evolution I say!! Down with it!! I WILL eat green eggs and ham.. lol

For anyone out there with an open mind and who is interested in learning the topic, here is a lecture by geologist and palaeontologist Dr. Donald Prothero called "Evolution: How We Know it Happened & Why it Matters" -

Advance to 12:15 if you want to avoid the introduction.

a reply to: kdyam



originally posted by: stuff1

Not true I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I was never given the other side of the story. If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist. Some people who go to an "Origins" thread must be at least be open to other possibilities.

Furthermore, to state "If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist" is exactly the opposite.
When anyone (including elementary school students) with a modicum of science education look at creationism claims, they see it for the crap that it is. Given the choice of accepting creationism or become atheists is why creationism is one of the leading contributors to the growth and spread of atheism.

The necessity of that choice is yet another creationist lie. Thank you very much for your continuing support for atheism.

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
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

I was basing it off common sense. Islam and Christianity both feature traditions where children are indoctrinated and they account for 54%+ of the world population. The percentage gets even larger if you only count religious.

www.pewforum.org...

Here's a survey and quite interestingly there is a section on people who switch to religion late in life vs those that have always stayed with one, and it is a huge difference in the percentage. It includes atheists, but that is a small percentage of the numbers, regardless.

www.pewforum.org...

On average:

13% switch from affiliated to unaffiliated
4% switch from unaffiliated to affiliated
27% switch from one faith to another, but stay believers in their main tradition (ie sects of islam or christianity)
57% have never changed their affiliation

So to sum that up, only 4% really choose to believe later in life. 84% believe in their god their entire life. 13% leave their religions for another or none. If you throw the believe laters in with them you get roughly 17%. 83%-17% to me qualifies as most. I know surveys do not always tell the entire story, but my statement seems perfectly reasonable considering these numbers.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Why can't the science of evolution, just remain a science. Why does it have to be political or more specifically anti-religious. I've just watched the first few minutes of the top video and while I'm sure it does venture into the evidence for evolution, it's started off as a response to these 'creationists'. I've never met a creationist, in fact the only time I ever here them mentioned, is when it's a proponent of evolution making an attack that is always professed to be a defence against what they claim to be this evil religious agenda. This is the 21st century, not medieval times.

I live in the UK, I'm not a religious, and I honestly can't recall a religious person ever pushing their beliefs on me. I couldn't say the same about evolution or atheism.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

The only reason he starts with that is because creationists DO constantly and illogically attack evolution. Just read the top 5 threads in this section. You've never seen a creationist attack evolution? They start the argument every single time. Scientists and science savy folks don't just go around looking for creationists to make fun of, they do it to themselves by saying stuff like "If man evolved from monkeys, why are monkeys still here?" You think they are just made up? Read the OP. Read every thread in this section, none of them ever present valid arguments against it.

Maybe it's because you're in the UK, but most of the evolution deniers are from the southern US. The evangelicals and other fundamentalists are constantly fighting science. The other part are Islamic fundamentalists. On this website, it seems to be mostly Christians, but there are definitely others as well. I just don't get attacking science without a better explanation based on evidence.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

You get what you get when you run around making false claims, don't expect those of us who know better to just sit on our hands, you will to get called out.
Besides... it's fun (like shooting fish in a barrel) when you ask if there's any actual evidence for pixies orbiting Venus.

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Well almost all criticism aimed at evolution comes from creationists and is motivated by the fact that it contradicts their worldview.

Almost all the arguments they present have been debunked again, and again and again. Things like "Why are there still monkeys?", "Evolution is only a theory", "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" etc etc.

So, as an opener Don Prothero spends some time talking about these debunked arguments and why they are demonstrably wrong, and yes he openly discusses the political aspects of the attacks on science by the creationist/ID crowd.

You and I live in areas of the world where belief in creationism is fairly rare (although unfortunately it is rising here), so depending on your social circles, it's probably unlikely you will randomly run into many of them.

Sadly even here though (and likely in Britain), they are gaining ground. This comes not only from evangelical christian fundamentalists, but also from the insular Islamic communities. With the rise to power here of a hard right conservative prime minister who wants to turn this country into a mini-US-style pseudo-theocracy, they are now forcing religion more and more into schools, and are lobbying to bring creationism (or, if you prefer, ID) into the science class.

So like it or not, the issue has become political. The threat is there and is changing our society, whether or not we perceive it in our immediate social groups.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

That is why we must be vigilant and not allow these clowns to speak for us.
Less you could end up like Merica, a nation of sheep ruled by wolves owned by pigs.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

That is why we must be vigilant and not allow these clowns to speak for us.
Less you could end up like Merica, a nation of sheep ruled by wolves owned by pigs.

Great song. Love the slide guitar, and great lyrics.


> a nation of sheep ruled by wolves owned by pigs

I got one for you, but it's not quite so upbeat as yours..

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Well almost all criticism aimed at evolution comes from creationists and is motivated by the fact that it contradicts their worldview.

Not all criticism though - there are scientists too, yet the argument seems to focus entirely on the religious opposition. The issue I have with evolution is that there is no organising element described within the fundamental forces, that could create and maintain such remarkable form. If you break everything down, you're left with nothing more than particles and energy. But in order to accept biological systems as nothing more than the result of inanimate matter's interactions, at some point an organising element must arise from nowhere.

Almost all the arguments they present have been debunked again, and again and again. Things like "Why are there still monkeys?", "Evolution is only a theory", "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics" etc etc.

I think you're cherry-picking your examples.

So, as an opener Don Prothero spends some time talking about these debunked arguments and why they are demonstrably wrong, and yes he openly discusses the political aspects of the attacks on science by the creationist/ID crowd.

If it's so absurd, why grant credibility to them by responding.

Sadly even here though (and likely in Britain), they are gaining ground. This comes not only from evangelical christian fundamentalists, but also from the insular Islamic communities. With the rise to power here of a hard right conservative prime minister who wants to turn this country into a mini-US-style pseudo-theocracy, they are now forcing religion more and more into schools, and are lobbying to bring creationism (or, if you prefer, ID) into the science class.

The problem I see is that evolution hasn't been proven to me and I'm sure it never will be. I find it's promotion akin the religious zealotry that is so frequently cited as its opposition's dangerous behaviour.

So like it or not, the issue has become political. The threat is there and is changing our society, whether or not we perceive it in our immediate social groups.

I can't help thinking that there are more immediate and significant dangers than creationism vs. evolution. I can't see religion regaining the power it once had in the West - can you?

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

The four fundamental forces are the organizing element. We have talked about this before. Those who oppose evolution do so without ever understanding what evolution actually claims. You are one of the few non religious, evo deniers i have met, but not the only one.

Evolution has no chance of being understood by someone like you because you will never take the time to study biology. Reading news articles is not studying.

And again you just say it can't be true but never give a reason why. So why? What part of change over time is so hard to believe? Give examples.


When did religion lose it's power? How many american politicians are atheists? None ever?

originally posted by: Robert Reynolds

The problem I see is that evolution hasn't been proven to me and I'm sure it never will be. I find it's promotion akin the religious zealotry that is so frequently cited as its opposition's dangerous behaviour.

Just curious - do you hold the rest of science up to this same standard, or is it just evolution you have a problem with? Do you have issues with the theory of gravity, or atomic theory, or with Newton's Laws of Motion or with genetics or biochemistry etc etc?

a reply to: Robert Reynolds

Holy batcrap, i just clicked your name and read your introduction thread. I am now convinced you are just a troll, i was sure of it before, but now i am convinced.

Come out from under your bridge with your hands up!!!