Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

seems now they can show evolution in real time, this came out today



link

enjoy the read

originally posted by: thedigirati
seems now they can show evolution in real time, this came out today



link

enjoy the read

that is not evolution at all. it is adaptation. like my blue eyes is evolution is it???

originally posted by: flanimal4114

originally posted by: thedigirati
seems now they can show evolution in real time, this came out today

link

enjoy the read

that is not evolution at all. it is adaptation. like my blue eyes is evolution is it???

Did I call that one or what?

This is a classic example of science deniers redefining terminology to suit their agenda AKA Straw man fallacy.

Blue eyes did originally emerge via evolution.

Long term adaptation of populations IS evolution.

I can't explain it any simpler than that. If it is comforting for you to make up your own definitions for things to try to rationalize a belief, then I cannot help you. I just don't see the point of arguing against something that you don't even understand the very basics of.

a reply to: Barcs

If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a second...

The problem with many evolutionists is that they think in terms of time-frames and discount creationism on the basis of time. Evolutionists seem to have a problem with non-dual thinking:

"No, My son, the evolutionists are not right. I created all of this - all of this - in the blink of an eye; in one holy instant - just as the creationists have said. And it came about through a process of evolution taking billions and billions of what you call years, just as the evolutionists claim.

originally posted by: Saurus
a reply to: Barcs

If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a second...

The problem with many evolutionists is that they think in terms of time-frames and discount creationism on the basis of time. Evolutionists seem to have a problem with non-dual thinking:

"No, My son, the evolutionists are not right. I created all of this - all of this - in the blink of an eye; in one holy instant - just as the creationists have said. And it came about through a process of evolution taking billions and billions of what you call years, just as the evolutionists claim.

No creationists are discounted because they insert the paranormal to explain a natural process that we have a comprehensive explanation for.

They also quote supernatural characters asthough it's evidence for their claims..

a reply to: Saurus

I have not argued that creation and evolution cannot coexist. They definitely can, it's not an either / or scenario. It is mostly creationists that claim this. I have no problem with the concept of theistic evolution. What I do have a problem with is people using fallacious logic and ignorance to argue against evolution without understanding even the basic fundamentals of the process first. It's intellectually dishonest. I don't discount creation, I discount the literal interpretation of Genesis because it conflicts with science.

What is an evolutionist, by the way? Are you referring to evolutionary biologists? Evolution isn't a belief system.

a reply to: flanimal4114

so Eskimos have a lot of body hair to keep warm 6 months a year??? That would be adaptation too right?? could that be the origin of the "yeti"?

I did not do this study, I just brought the information that is out there.
If it is wrong show what is wrong with the study.

I'm 6'4" both of my parents are 5'10' was that adaptation as well?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Saurus

I have not argued that creation and evolution cannot coexist. They definitely can, it's not an either / or scenario. It is mostly creationists that claim this. I have no problem with the concept of theistic evolution. What I do have a problem with is people using fallacious logic and ignorance to argue against evolution without understanding even the basic fundamentals of the process first. It's intellectually dishonest. I don't discount creation, I discount the literal interpretation of Genesis because it conflicts with science.

What is an evolutionist, by the way? Are you referring to evolutionary biologists? Evolution isn't a belief system.

the problem i have with fusing creationism and evolution is that creationism abuses the theory of evolution, using the credibility of actual research and actual evidence to provide the sole support for an untested and unrelated hypothesis. its politically correct plagiarism, and its unethical and disgusting.

originally posted by: Barcs

What I do have a problem with is people using fallacious logic and ignorance to argue against evolution without understanding even the basic fundamentals of the process first. It's intellectually dishonest. I don't discount creation, I discount the literal interpretation of Genesis because it conflicts with science.

Fair enough, but you're still stuck in the dual way of thinking - either Genesis or Science.

Let's think of Noah for a second:

How long did it take Noah to collect 5 million pairs of animals and how did they fit on the ark? If he rounded up one pair of animals a day, that's 13698 years. Also, if the ark's dimension's were 300 cubits (135 meters) long and 50 cubits (22.5 meters) wide as stated, modern calculations show that worm species alone would have filled 2.5% of the ark's volume.

Obviously, this argument is absurd. So let's assume both are right - how do we account for this? Obviously, there must have been far fewer species of animals in Noah's time - maybe a few hundred species - it's the only possibility. So then, how do we account for the 5 million species today as opposed to a few hundred in Noah's time? Evolution, of course!

I'm not trying to promote the idea that both exist - I just find that evolutionists blame creationists for lack of thought, but in another way, they are also guilty of thinking in a box way too often.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

No creationists are discounted because they insert the paranormal to explain a natural process that we have a comprehensive explanation for.

Aah, but we don't have a comprehensive explanation. Science is empirical - it's based on what we can observe. And since the only thing that humans can comprehend is that which is observable within the electromagnetic spectrum, we discount everything else. An assumption that only stuff that is observable through the electromagnetic spectrum exists is a lot to simply assume. To discount whatever we cannot observe inhibits progress in science, methinks.

They also quote supernatural characters asthough it's evidence for their claims..

Yeah, quoting supernatural entities is bizarre. To actually quote supernatural beings means that one must physically have 'heard' the quote. Anything that can 'speak', by definition, would be natural.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: flanimal4114

so Eskimos have a lot of body hair to keep warm 6 months a year??? That would be adaptation too right?? could that be the origin of the "yeti"?

This is semantics - if somethings adapts, doesn't it evolve?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

the problem i have with fusing creationism and evolution is that creationism abuses the theory of evolution, using the credibility of actual research and actual evidence to provide the sole support for an untested and unrelated hypothesis. its politically correct plagiarism, and its unethical and disgusting.

But you're still thinking in timeframes! The evidence is only millions (maybe billions) of years old. A sample of a billion years taken from a population of eternity is not a very good scientific sample. How can you possibly extrapolate such a tiny sample back to infinity?

To assume our tiny sample teaches us any more about creation an infinite amount of time ago is as much guesswork as assigning it to a supernatural entity.

a reply to: Saurus

But you're still thinking in timeframes! The evidence is only millions (maybe billions) of years old. A sample of a billion years taken from a population of eternity is not a very good scientific sample. How can you possibly extrapolate such a tiny sample back to infinity?

i am thinking in terms of evidence. whether or not you accept the evidence is irrelevant. i notice you also ignored (or neglected to address) the point i made concerning creationism "borrowing" credibility from legitimate science that has nothing to do with creationism.

To assume our tiny sample teaches us any more about creation an infinite amount of time ago is as mush guesswork as assigning it to a supernatural entity.

taking a cup of water from the ocean doesnt tell me whats in the ocean. but it does tell me that adding phosphorous wont turn the ocean into chocolate, after i have experimented with the cup. because magic isnt real.

a reply to: Saurus

Why did you quote "conversations with God" as if it meant anything?

Do Christians use said book as if its canon these days?

Or were you trying to pass it off as if it came straight from God?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Saurus

Why did you quote "conversations with God" as if it meant anything?

It's simply an appropriate example of non-dual thinking.

Do Christians use said book as if its canon these days?

Or were you trying to pass it off as if it came straight from God?

What makes you think I'm Christian? Surely my avatar would immediately suggest otherwise... ;-)

originally posted by: TzarChasm

because magic isnt real.

Just because you haven't seen evidence of magic, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On this point, I will actually voice an opinion and strongly disagree with you.

a reply to: Saurus

my apologies... I've never really found people arguing against evolution that were not Christians

Though I have found many Christians trying to pass of recent literature as coming straight from the bible.

And I don't judge a poster based on his avatar... I prefer to base it on what they post

T'was an assumption in any case

originally posted by: Saurus

originally posted by: TzarChasm

because magic isnt real.

Just because you haven't seen evidence of magic, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. On this point, I will actually voice an opinion and strongly disagree with you.

when you devise an experiment, execute it, record your findings and present them to a board of certified peers, then i will consider your claim.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Saurus

my apologies... I've never really found people arguing against evolution that were not Christians

Though I have found many Christians trying to pass of recent literature as coming straight from the bible.

And I don't judge a poster based on his avatar... I prefer to base it on what they post

T'was an assumption in any case

I am a chemistry/biochemistry researcher by profession. In my experience, the biggest obstacle to new discoveries is by assuming what we know to be true.

The greatest discoveries are always made when we discard everything we know to be true and assume nothing.

Hence, I like to practice arguing any side of the argument which may sound like fun at the time - it helps me in my research! ;-)

"If you would be a real seeker after truth, you must, at least once in your life, as far as possible, doubt all things."
~Descartes

originally posted by: Saurus
Fair enough, but you're still stuck in the dual way of thinking - either Genesis or Science.

That's not the way I view it at all. Science gets priority because it is based on tangible data and real world experiments. A literal interpretation of Genesis has no supporting evidence to back it and actually conflicts with science. It's not either / or. The science remains valid, whether creationism is true, false or the answer lies somewhere in the middle. There are also hundreds of other possibilities that don't conflict with science. It's not just a choice between science and one guy's warped version of his faith that allows for an ancient storybook that's been translated and passed down over thousands of years as absolute literal truth.

Let's think of Noah for a second:

How long did it take Noah to collect 5 million pairs of animals and how did they fit on the ark? If he rounded up one pair of animals a day, that's 13698 years. Also, if the ark's dimension's were 300 cubits (135 meters) long and 50 cubits (22.5 meters) wide as stated, modern calculations show that worm species alone would have filled 2.5% of the ark's volume.

Obviously, this argument is absurd. So let's assume both are right - how do we account for this? Obviously, there must have been far fewer species of animals in Noah's time - maybe a few hundred species - it's the only possibility. So then, how do we account for the 5 million species today as opposed to a few hundred in Noah's time? Evolution, of course!

I'm not trying to promote the idea that both exist - I just find that evolutionists blame creationists for lack of thought, but in another way, they are also guilty of thinking in a box way too often.

People blame creationists because 99% of their attacks on evolution are based on ignorance of science, and because they clearly get their information on science from creationist propaganda sites rather than actual scientific research papers and experiments.

Either way you slice it, a global flood conflicts with science, because:

1. There are no mixed fossil layers, creatures from the same time period are always found together, not once has a legitimate fossil ever been found in the wrong layer.

2. Based on the fossil record, evolution didn't suddenly start after the time of the so called flood, it was going on long before humans.

3. There is no evidence of a global flood in the sedimentary layers. If it were there it would be obvious no matter where on earth you dug.

4. 3 billion years of evolution before humans, plus you don't have 5 million species suddenly branching out in a sudden short time frame like a burst. If you look at the fossil record you see the same theme (slow change over time, ie descent with modification), you don't have 3 billion years of stagnant organisms and then all of sudden everything changes in a few hundred thousands years.

It's not about creative thought, it's about physical evidence. You can try to rationalize a belief like you did above, but it is not logical in the least. I'm not against theistic evolution as a possible guided process by a creator, but if a creator does exist, that's the only way it fits with the scientific models, unless the creator is non interfering. I have no problem discussing possibilities, but most claims brought forward here are not even possibilities (ie biblical literalism). It has absolutely nothing to do with imagination. It has to do with hard evidence.

Aah, but we don't have a comprehensive explanation. Science is empirical - it's based on what we can observe. And since the only thing that humans can comprehend is that which is observable within the electromagnetic spectrum, we discount everything else. An assumption that only stuff that is observable through the electromagnetic spectrum exists is a lot to simply assume. To discount whatever we cannot observe inhibits progress in science, methinks.

Who discounts everything else? Last I checked, theists are the majority of not only this country but also the world. People aren't discounting the idea of god or supernatural, they are just saying we haven't yet found evidence of such a thing. Creationists seem to get insulted by this but it is merely an admission of fact. We don't know the absolute answer to everything. Science doesn't say there is no god, it just hasn't found evidence yet, so we can't consider something factual until evidence is found. This doesn't inhibit the scientific process in the least. It is a far bigger assumption to think that because science hasn't figured it all out yet, that it means god exists. The logical default for no evidence is non existence, so until hard evidence is found, science has no comment on a creator or god.

A sample of a billion years taken from a population of eternity is not a very good scientific sample. How can you possibly extrapolate such a tiny sample back to infinity?

Your fatal flaw here is that you are assuming that eternity or infinity exists. Nobody knows that. The universe could easily be finite.