Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

So basically, instead of getting upset and running away every time you face adversity, stay, address the counterpoints, and show us the error of our ways. I took substantial time out of my day debunking that first article point by point, and all you can say afterwards is that it's a great article and people like me only ridicule others. You refuse to address any of our science links, refutations of your sources, or counterpoints. When people make posts I almost always address them point by point and try to be as thorough as I can. If you aren't prepared to defend your position, what's the point of even posting on this site? This is why conversations go nowhere and why there is no debate at all. When somebody attacks my position, I attack back with facts and data. I don't get upset and run away.

originally posted by: vasagaThen maybe you should stop repeating and change what you're saying, or try explaining it in another way.

I've changed what I've said so many times there isn't too many other ways I can explain it. I've tried helpful metaphors, simplicity, technical explanations, but those can only go so far if the person doesn't engage, take that information in and rebut the points. Most of the time they ignore most of the good points and latch onto one or two ideas and think they've disproved my entire argument then proceed to repeat what they just right before I commented to them. Debates are supposed to be engaging with both people addressing each person's points, not just repeats of the same thing over and over again. For instance, I cannot remember the last time I saw a creationist concede a point (a valid debate tactic that can be used to further your own points or help you view things from the other person's perspective).

Yeah well, the feeling is mutual. Especially when you're being labeled as a creationist without being one.

The difference being that we have evidence to back up our claims. Creationists start with a confirmation bias and try to make all the evidence fit their predetermined conclusion.

If it doesn't involve the creation of life, then why the #$%^&* are so many of you anti-creationism, if creationism focuses on the creation of life??????????????????????????????????????????????

Well I'm agnostic. I don't make assumptions about things that humans do not have adequate evidence to explain. I'm sure my peers are the same way. The idea of creationism starts with assumptions: God exists, God created the universe, God can create life, God did create life, aliens visited earth in the past, aliens created humans, aliens altered our history, and more. These are all assumptions since we have no definitive evidence of any of these things.

Also, science has a working hypothesis for how life originated and a valid theory on how the universe was created. We'd be more than happy to discuss these topics with anyone, but it is very insulting when a Creationist pretends like evolution talks about the origins of life then tries to use that to disprove evolution. It puts us at odds with the Creationists right at the start of the conversation, because the lazy Creationist can't be arsed to actually LEARN anything about his debate opponent's position and just makes assumptions about it that they can then take down (strawmans) while declaring victory.

Maybe you're assuming you've proved them wrong, but you haven't actually addressed their concerns.

Well most of the time, I have to start by telling them that their preconceptions about evolution are incorrect and I have to explain to them a few times that they are wrong (see previous paragraph). So before I've even proven them wrong, I have to waste a few pages ironing out how evolution actually WORKS versus whatever idea that the creationist has in their head on how it works. This is before I have gotten anywhere close to proving them wrong. Then they proceed to not listen to this and we go in circles. I cannot count the number of times I've had to tell Creationists that evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics. The explanation on why it doesn't is rather simple (earth isn't a closed system, it receives the majority of its energy from the sun and elsewhere), yet Creationists cannot be bothered to keep this information in their head since they'll go into the next thread and repeat this SAME incorrect statement about the 2nd LoT.

The feeling is mutual.

It's safe to say that it is not worth listening to someone who says something incorrect about your position. The feeling is mutual for you because of the explanation in the previous paragraph. I refuse to entertain ideas that incorrectly describe evolution.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Very well said. I think Vasaga doesn't realize that It's not about being anti-creationist, it's about being pro science. It just happens to be that 99% of the evolution deniers are creationists, so when we talk about "creationists claim" X or "creationists claim" Y, it's because they do make those claims, not because we hate creationists. The creationists that post on here are probably only a very small percentage of folks that believe in god / creation.

a reply to: stuff1

Was kinda rooting for you up to this point.
Youre posts were well written and some of the arguments very good.
BUT, 6000yrs, really?

GO TEAM SCIENCE!

originally posted by: Barcs
So basically, instead of getting upset and running away every time you face adversity, stay, address the counterpoints, and show us the error of our ways.

It's not 'upset', it's annoyed and indifferent to the outcome.
It's not running away. It's refusing to participate in a one-sided 'conversation'. Such a conversation nullifies any ability to address any counterpoints, due to the double standards clouding it.

originally posted by: Barcs
I took substantial time out of my day debunking that first article point by point, and all you can say afterwards is that it's a great article and people like me only ridicule others. You refuse to address any of our science links, refutations of your sources, or counterpoints.

I don't refuse anything. It's simply that nothing is ever enough. The bias is too strong, and everyone will have an excuse for anything to be dismissed, to then claim I haven't presented anything. If you want evidence and I post something, it's never sufficient.

If I label you as neo-darwinists for supporting evolution -> I'm retarded.
If you label me creationist for supporting intelligent design -> You're speaking the truth.

If I say something is illogical -> No evidence, therefore not science, therefore not valid.
On the contrary, if you say something is illogical or creationist or whatever -> Counts as evidence, counts as science, and is a fact.

If I post a blog as evidence -> Not a peer-reviewed article, therefore not valid, independent of content.
On the contrary, if you post a blog as evidence -> Forget peer review, it is valid, independent of content.

If I don't want to invest time in some blog or article that I clearly see as being propaganda -> I'm being anti-science and am retarded.
If you don't want to invest time in something because you consider it to be creationist garbage -> you receive praise for spreading facts and eliminating so-called religious deception.

If I post something from a scientist who happens to support X -> Scientist is creationist, has already been debunked, has an agenda.
If you post something from a scientist that happens to support Y -> Scientist is reliable, has no propaganda at all, is only speaking truth.

If I post a peer-reviewed article as evidence -> Rebuttal has been posted, therefore evidence is not valid, independent of content or source.
On the contrary, if I post a rebuttal to one of your so-called peer-reviewed articles, it's immediately labeled as creationist and therefore yours remains valid, independent of the content or source.

originally posted by: Barcs
When people make posts I almost always address them point by point and try to be as thorough as I can.

Actions and words are at odds here.

originally posted by: Barcs
If you aren't prepared to defend your position,

No one can be prepared against these kind of double standards. There's a difference between defending your position and defending against what other people make your position to be.

originally posted by: Barcs
what's the point of even posting on this site? This is why conversations go nowhere and why there is no debate at all. When somebody attacks my position, I attack back with facts and data. I don't get upset and run away.

You would stop the 'discussion' if there's a double standard lurking around the corner for every post you make.

I'm not expecting any change in this double standard, so... Yeah. Forgive me for not giving a rats behind anymore of what you require from me to prove any point. I'll post my stuff. Whether it's sufficient or not according to you, your problem. I don't require your approval. The ones who are open will get it, the ones who are not, will not.

originally posted by: vasaga
It's not running away. It's refusing to participate in a one-sided 'conversation'. Such a conversation nullifies any ability to address any counterpoints, due to the double standards clouding it.

You are right. The conversation is indeed one sided because you never address counterpoints.

I don't refuse anything. It's simply that nothing is ever enough. The bias is too strong, and everyone will have an excuse for anything to be dismissed, to then claim I haven't presented anything. If you want evidence and I post something, it's never sufficient.
If I label you as neo-darwinists for supporting evolution -> I'm retarded.
If you label me creationist for supporting intelligent design -> You're speaking the truth.
If I say something is illogical -> No evidence, therefore not science, therefore not valid.
On the contrary, if you say something is illogical or creationist or whatever -> Counts as evidence, counts as science, and is a fact.
If I post a blog as evidence -> Not a peer-reviewed article, therefore not valid, independent of content.
On the contrary, if you post a blog as evidence -> Forget peer review, it is valid, independent of content.

You haven't posted anything against evolution, though. I asked for a peer reviewed science paper. From the links you posted, 2 of 3 did not have any science experiments, and the 3rd did not refute evolution. Do you have a counterpoint to this, or is that statement just biased? You could very easily prove that it's me being biased by referencing me to the science experiments contained in the links. Maybe I missed them, but without you even addressing this point I have no idea what to make of it.

And I've been very careful not to call you a creationist. Typically I use the term "evolution denier" now, because I don't care about creationism and it has nothing to do with evolution, plus people get offended. I'm pretty sure I've never called you "retarded". That isn't my style. Darwinist is not a valid term in today's world. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis today has very little to do with Charles Darwin aside from natural selection and even most evolution deniers don't deny that.

If I don't want to invest time in some blog or article that I clearly see as being propaganda -> I'm being anti-science and am retarded.
If you don't want to invest time in something because you consider it to be creationist garbage -> you receive praise for spreading facts and eliminating so-called religious deception.

The problem is that something that I see as clear propaganda I usually explain why, unless it's already been done dozens of times (ie Hovind arguments). You claim that every science article that supports evolution is propaganda and won't address a single word of it. For example the article that I broke down point by point. That article made the claim that 2 lizards mating and never giving birth to a bird is evidence against evolution. You called that a "great" article. Are you trying to tell me that you agree with that statement? Or am I being biased for dismissing it as illogical garbage point that it is?

If I post something from a scientist who happens to support X -> Scientist is creationist, has already been debunked, has an agenda.
If you post something from a scientist that happens to support Y -> Scientist is reliable, has no propaganda at all, is only speaking truth.

This isn't true. Appeal to authority is a fallacy. Scientists as well as anybody else can have opinions that can be wrong. Just because a scientist believes X, doesn't make it correct, regardless of which "side" it supports. I don't quote scientists opinions when providing evidence for evolution. I quote references to scientific experiments and research papers.

If I post a peer-reviewed article as evidence -> Rebuttal has been posted, therefore evidence is not valid, independent of content or source.
On the contrary, if I post a rebuttal to one of your so-called peer-reviewed articles, it's immediately labeled as creationist and therefore yours remains valid, independent of the content or source.

Why should I post a rebuttal when you refuse to address it or respond to any counterpoints? I posted the wordpress blog refutation because I didn't feel like breaking down the entire thing point for point. The last time I did that, all my counterpoints where completely ignored. It was way easier just to link the rebuttal. The problem is I respond to virtually everything you try to post against evolution, and you have nothing to say to any of my points. That's why the conversations are one sided. If the rebuttals are wrong, show us where and why. You seem to think that your articles and everything you post on here is the gospel and can't be refuted.

Actions and words are at odds here.

Explain.

originally posted by: Barcs
No one can be prepared against these kind of double standards. There's a difference between defending your position and defending against what other people make your position to be.

Then show us where it is wrong and why. It's not that difficult. If this subject is something you have vast knowledge on and you aren't just googling random papers that favor your side, surely your can explain your points in depth and show us exactly where our arguments are wrong. That's what I do.

originally posted by: Barcs
You would stop the 'discussion' if there's a double standard lurking around the corner for every post you make.

Show me a single double standard that I've used as an argument in any of my posts. If I say your link isn't scientific, and you think it is, all you have to do is link the science and source it. If I say your link is funded by ID or creationist people, all you have to do is link it to the valid science and prove me wrong or show me that the people who fund it are legit. If I say your article has nothing to do with evolution, source me the part that is and prove me wrong. You just post an article and expect us all to accept it blindly without scrutiny and without you defending it at all, but when we post articles with conflicting views, you claim bias. That is called cherry picking.

I'm not expecting any change in this double standard, so... Yeah. Forgive me for not giving a rats behind anymore of what you require from me to prove any point. I'll post my stuff. Whether it's sufficient or not according to you, your problem. I don't require your approval. The ones who are open will get it, the ones who are not, will not.

You get combative every time you discuss this. If that's your attitude, don't get upset when we call your articles out for the BS they are. Post your stuff, we'll just keep explaining to the rest of the people why they are wrong while you refuse to defend your view, and the average reader that doesn't post on here will know which side is backed by facts and which one is full of fallacies and cherry picked articles.

I'm willing to admit if I make a mistake or get proven wrong. I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong, but when you refuse to address a single counterpoint or even address a single point in a science article it doesn't help your case. I believe in denying ignorance.

originally posted by: Barcs
2 lizards mating and never giving birth to a bird is evidence against evolution. You called that a "great" article. Are you trying to tell me that you agree with that statement? Or am I being biased for dismissing it as illogical garbage point that it is?

If I would take such an out of context statement from any of your articles you would say I'm cherry-picking.

Yeah, not going into it. Sorry.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs
2 lizards mating and never giving birth to a bird is evidence against evolution. You called that a "great" article. Are you trying to tell me that you agree with that statement? Or am I being biased for dismissing it as illogical garbage point that it is?

If I would take such an out of context statement from any of your articles you would say I'm cherry-picking.

Yeah, not going into it. Sorry.

It wasn't out of context and if you read my breakdown of the article, you'd know this. But we all know you didn't and that you didn't even read the article before calling it great. This is the norm with you and probably the main reason you never address any evidence that goes against your side. You don't understand it and instead of admitting it, you continue to perpetuate the lies and assertions that evolution supporters are so mean to you and only know how to ridicule.

But yeah. You just proved every thing that I have suspected about you from the beginning. I highlighted WAY more wrong with that article than that one single statement, so it wasn't cherry picked. That was just an example of the multitude of fallacies and incorrect assertions in the article, but like usual you dishonestly take a single line or word and use it as your bread and butter, while ignoring all other points; just like you did with the whole "sudden" argument. It just shows that you have no scrutiny whatsoever, and barely even read the articles you source. I gave you multiple chances to back up your opinion and even suggested how you can do it, but you flat out refuse. It isn't just intellectually dishonest, it's extremely lazy. You champion the cause of attacking evolution and evolution advocates, but claim you are the one getting attacked every time. Somebody could post 10 paragraphs of evidence and then at the end say something like, "claiming this is dishonest and is used by many to promote an agenda" and your entire response will be dedicated to that one line, while ignoring the 10 paragraphs of facts and data. You should probably find another section to post in, because attacking science requires just a little bit of scrutiny, and you clearly do not have any. Deny ignorance.

a reply to: Barcs

I told you why I refuse. But yeah... You're not listening, like always. Your list of demands is infinitely great for anything I post, but you expect me to accept your first reply as truth every time, even if it doesn't fulfill the requirement for properly adressing the issue. Simply because yours has got a nicer label than mine. You simply keep changing the question until the other person doesn't knows one of them. It was obvious in this thread multiple times. Obviously, since not a single person knows everything, you'll eventually call yourself the victor when the person doesn't know which grain of sand on the beach appeared exactly 20542551 billion hours ago. Except you forget to realize that not being able to answer a question doesn't mean the other person is necessarily wrong. And since you can post whatever nonsense that will appear right, but doesn't address the question, you feel you're very smart and more knowledgeable. It's no different than beating someone to death with the bible, and when the other person refuses to participate, you conclude he's incompetent and running away.

And it's always the other person that's wrong. Even now, that I refuse to participate in your dictatorship, you're acting like the benevolent one trying to give people chances to explain things. After you've shunned them with your bible, you're telling the person that Jesus loves them. And even though explanations have been given multiple times, there's pretending that I didn't show anything.

I guess you didn't get the message that I don't really care what you think if your behavior is a double standard and that hypocritical.

I'll be leaving now, so you can keep having your neo-darwinian church session without my so-called incompetent interruptions.

a reply to: vasaga

I don't get it. When have I ever changed the question or used double standards? It sounds like you are looking for an excuse not to address science or counterpoints. I try to explain things to people because I've done a fair amount of research on the subject. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but you make no attempt to debate anything I say. If I am making errors or incorrect assumptions, I'd like to know about it. I don't care about being right or wrong, I care about provoking intelligent conversation and learning things. I see it as a challenge. This is why I push hard. Evolution deniers might not realize this but I've actually learned a lot from you guys about evolution because of the denial and believe it or not I was in that same "evolution is just a theory" boat just 10 years ago. It's not about being able to answer an unanswerable question, it's about addressing points and counterpoints and actually having a conversation. And come on, comparing my scientific viewpoint to being a bible preacher? Really?

Preaching = presenting something as evidence, but when others refute it, the counterpoints and links are ignored and original claim repeated

Debating = presenting something as evidence, and when others refute it, you refute their counterpoints with your own and use sources to back up your claims and refutations

I'm a debater. I did it in school and have been doing in for countless years. It's like it's programmed into my being. I enjoy it. Since I also LOVE science, the 2 go to together like bread and butter for me. I'm not trying to insult anybody's beliefs or belittle anybody and treat them as unintelligent. I just get bored when people refuse to back up what they say or even acknowledge evidence or counterpoints. I apologize, but that's just the way I am.

To the OP-
Sorry that there are so many ignorant people in the world. I for one, understand what you were trying to convey. That Creationism through ANY form ranging from Matrix world-to "God" is much more practical than zero to one being the absolute "fact". Also, I am a firm believer of Intelligent Design, and have found many flaws in the reasoning of evolutionists who claim that anything and everything on the planet evolved from the same exact proto-bacterium.

How did it even get here in the first place?

Until we figure out how to create a single cell organism from inorganic material, there is no way to prove macro evolution, thereby rendering the entire hypothesis obsolete.

originally posted by: scghst1
To the OP-
Sorry that there are so many ignorant people in the world. I for one, understand what you were trying to convey. That Creationism through ANY form ranging from Matrix world-to "God" is much more practical than zero to one being the absolute "fact". Also, I am a firm believer of Intelligent Design, and have found many flaws in the reasoning of evolutionists who claim that anything and everything on the planet evolved from the same exact proto-bacterium.

It happens when a population multiplies significantly enough and spreads out far enough that a part of it ends up isolating itself from the rest of the population and ends up breeding and evolving under its own conditions. This process repeats itself whenever a population isolates, which is all the time. Add time and mix heavily and you get the diversity of life today.

How did it even get here in the first place?

This isn't a question that the Theory of Evolution addresses so it is irrelevant to the discussion of Evolution being true or not.

Until we figure out how to create a single cell organism from inorganic material, there is no way to prove macro evolution, thereby rendering the entire hypothesis obsolete.

No, that is abiogenesis which is a hypothesis and not even a theory. Not to mention is is a COMPLETELY independent idea from Evolution. Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists on the planet. Heck you can take ANY point in the history of life on the planet as the starting point of Evolution since it is a highly recursive process. But to get to the true start, you put the starting point right after life appears on the planet, which could be anything: abiogenesis, biogenesis, seeded from off world, god, etc. Though some of those answers raise more questions, but again that is all unrelated to the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you should try studying the theory a bit more thoroughly before you start speaking about it. You clearly have misconceptions about how it works.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


No, that is abiogenesis which is a hypothesis and not even a theory. Not to mention is is a COMPLETELY independent idea from Evolution. Evolution starts with the premise that life already exists on the planet. Heck you can take ANY point in the history of life on the planet as the starting point of Evolution since it is a highly recursive process. But to get to the true start, you put the starting point right after life appears on the planet, which could be anything: abiogenesis, biogenesis, seeded from off world, god, etc. Though some of those answers raise more questions, but again that is all unrelated to the Theory of Evolution.

Perhaps you should try studying the theory a bit more thoroughly before you start speaking about it. You clearly have misconceptions about how it works.

I appreciate your knowledge and will look further. Thank you. However I do not appreciate passive aggresiveness. Regardless,

Scientists have already discovered that human DNA has been devolving over thousands of years, and that people today don't live a fraction as long as they did 20,000 years ago, same for strength and brains and IQ's all far higher many millennium ago.

And the camp who think we are going to have a "next stage of evolution" really makes me laugh. More like a devolution. We see it happening right now, I mean, look how stupid the whole world is killing each other everywhere.. Like rats in a sinking ship.

This is why I feel that evolution theory is a dead end. It isn't happening that way at all. At least not now it sure isn't.

a reply to: scghst1

If you thought that I was being passive aggressive with that response, then you don't know me very well. I was actually holding my sarcasm and wit in check with that post to try to help educate you since I've never responded to you before (or at least that I remember). But take it as you will. I'm just glad you are reviewing the information I gave instead of ignoring it.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: scghst1

If you thought that I was being passive aggressive with that response, then you don't know me very well. I was actually holding my sarcasm and wit in check with that post to try to help educate you since I've never responded to you before (or at least that I remember). But take it as you will. I'm just glad you are reviewing the information I gave instead of ignoring it.

Apologies and props then. Thanks

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Howdy,

You make a strong claim, saying that scientists believe humans live shorter lives now than 20,000 years ago. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? See, I've always been told that human lifespans have been getting longer with better healthcare.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: hydeman11
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Howdy,

You make a strong claim, saying that scientists believe humans live shorter lives now than 20,000 years ago. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? See, I've always been told that human lifespans have been getting longer with better healthcare.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

When I posted this, I had hoped people would search for it, rather than not, but take a look at this and see if it helps, or maybe it is all BS, I will leave it up to you in the interest of good whatever..

In a two-part paper published in the journal Trends in Genetics, Stanford University researcher Gerald Crabtree suggests that evolution is, in fact, making us dumber — and that human intelligence may have actually peaked before our hunter-gatherer predecessors left Africa.

Stanford study

Of course he does say "Suggests", but the search I did seems to have a few agreeing with his paper, but is it peer reviewed yet? I am not sure, but I'll look more tomorrow.

Cambridge study:
Cambridge study

This one also has other smart folks concurring with this. It actually does make sense when you think of how DNA keeps getting more diluted.



If these studies are correct, then I would think if your DNA were much better say 10k years ago, that by itself would be equal to even better healthcare than we have right now, but it is just a thought.

Thanks for the reply

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I didn't see anything in there about living longer lives. Sounds like that's just an assumption. We didn't see humans building advanced civilizations with technology (at least not based on evidence) 20,000 years ago, so I'm not sure I agree that they were smarter. Better DNA is a relative term. Back then we were better hunters and gatherers so we had more physical traits. Now we rely on technology so most of that is phased out because those traits are no longer survival requirements. Unfortunately I can't find any direct links to the study that don't require you to pay for them, so I can't tell exactly what experiments were run and conclusions were derived. I do not agree that our intellect has declined, because it is the biggest survival tool we have (despite this society often catering to the stupid).

Not everybody agrees with Crabtree’s reasoning, however. Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, believes there is insufficient data to support his theory. “Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” Jones told The Independent. “I could just as well argue that mutations have reduced our aggression, our depression and our penis length, but no journal would publish that. Why do they publish this?”

This is from the article and he claims there is insufficient data to determine what they are saying. It's also a little suspicious that there are no free copies of the study available.

java-srv1.mpi-cbg.de...

Here's a link to a study that was done in response to that study. Pretty interesting stuff.

a reply to: Barcs

Living longer is there because I saw when I was reading these... There are more sites discussing this with other scientists from universities. If you are in high doubt about this, that is up to you, I am not saying because these web sites said it that it has to be true. I did say though that I feel like it makes sense..

I'm reading the PDF you linked, yes, very cool, the more I read on this, the more interesting it gets. I tend to believe the age part too because I have heard it talked about a long time ago with reference to these same findings, although back then, there wasn't a university study on it.

My belief of this is more intuition, but that isn't very scientific of me

Edit: 10% smaller brains that studdy, (and others), show. I am of the "smaller" mind that people were smarter back then.roll: