Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Yeah Social Darwinism, as used by fascists, is the belief that basically survival the fittest is the deciding factor in society.

It has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.

edit on 27-12-2010 by Wally Hope because: typo

In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10^500

reply to post by stuff1

The only conclusion is that people have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible and therefore will refuse to believe creation no matter what.

I agree, it's called bias, and then self-denial, and then cognitive dissonance with some.
Then they could say the same about those of us that believe in God and Creation.
I am just glad we live in a age were this reality will be proved true when it is in the greatest doubt and disbelief ever.

LOL. Evolution is illogical? not creationism? what the hell are you smoking, i'd sure like to give that stuff a try.

I only read the original post (only a few comments). This is my humble opinion and I am still undecided, in no way do I want to attack or insult. I get the feeling you are trying to use the evidence provided to say that evolution is false. What confuses me is that evolution can still be speculated as true regardless of content in this thread as it wasn't 100% proved false. The same goes for Christianity, there is some evidence pointing towards it (the Bible) but theirs tons of things pointing against it.

I was raised Christian, because I was told it was the absolute truth since childhood it was hard for me to question everything. I think anyone debating between intelligent design and evolution isn't fair because everyone is extremely biased. Most Christians wont ever consider evidence pointing against it, same goes for evolutionists. Being religious I was so stuck in my ways and what was said to be true, I would read something pointing against it (and "consider it") but in reality I knew regardless of what it said I wouldn't ever believe it. Currently I guess I am undecided, but because I am taking lots of science courses (specifically Biology) I know much about evolution and I need to treat it as truth in school as if evolution wasn't true then huge huge sections of life science wouldn't work.

This is why I feel this topic of debate is useless, excluding the small middle portion no evolutionist or Christian is going to chance there views unless they revive some kind of Revelation. How could you believe something you don't want to believe? Its a useless effort. I think evolutionists should make their information accessible but not argue religious people insulting their beliefs. Same goes for religion, I find the effort to convert and force religion on people who don't want it in futile.

I don't know... I have lots of questions when considering that there is a God. Does he even care about us? Is there other life in the universe? Were we simply creations but not watched over? idk....

Evolution is FACT...and its goal isn't to "disprove god"

All scientists are saying is that there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for god...and that too is a FACT

a reply to: Wally Hope

Amen, preach it brother:

originally posted by: stuff1
After reviewing the science behind evolution I have come to the following conclusion: Evolution is a conspiracy

Lol. I have some doubts (re possible pre existing beliefs).

created by those who have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible.

Science isn't theology and doesn't even need to examine unsupported extraneous notions of invisible, magical sky fairies. That would be your burden, to first show there is such a thing, then start doing some explaining re evolution.


Ruling out the 3,000 or so "known" Gods and magic applies to a different field (aka common sense).

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

Has nothing directly to do with biological evolution.

No one really knows, but if you listen to quantum physicists re "a universe from nothing" you will see where you are wrong, they are not talking about magic. Nor are they necessarily talking about the "philosophical" nothing you seem to be. In the end, it is only dishonest creationists who claim to really "know".

creation.com...

That was funny. Thanks.

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form stars, they need to be pushed somehow to be started.

Seems a bit misleading. Also has nothing to do with biological evolution.

Although the early universe was remarkably smooth, the background radiation shows evidence of small-scale density fluctuations—clumps in the primordial soup. The cosmological models predict that these clumps would gradually evolve into gravitationally bound structures.

www.scientificamerican.com...

creation.com...

Not just funny, hilarious. An example of (i)llogic and assumptions based on confirmation bias (from personal belief in magic beings). Thanks again.

Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50.

Again, nothing to do with evolution. I claim the odds of life forming on this planet to be 100% in the affirmative. Can you prove that wrong?

Meaning they would never happen randomly (like dropping red, white and blue from an airplane would never paint an American Flag on a field) no matter how much time is given. Oh did I mention that according to cosmological evolution the earth would have been negative 28 degrees on average during the time the primordial ooze supposedly existed?

www.iscid.org...

A simple look around might clear that up for you.

Edit. Re the paper. Can you tell me which publication peer reviewed and published it? Can't find much info on the linked site (site links don't go anywhere).

Macro Evolution - The changing of one kind to another. According to evolution you are from a rock which eroded into the primordial ooze, became a "simple" cell, a simple amphibian, fish, bird, monkey etc blah, blah to you. If Macro Evolution where true you need to show that new information was created in the DNA. Yet there is not one example of clear, empirically supported examples of information-gaining, beneficial mutations. Mutations that are expressed virtually always result in loss of information or corruption of the gene. People can mutate to be immune to malaria but that is because they have sickle cell anemia. Bacteria can mutate to be resistant to antibiotics but that is because the pouch that holds the antibiotic is gone, kind of like saying a human is immune to handcuffs because his hands are gone. While it may be beneficial "in that environment" the organism is actually weaker. This is evidence of de-evolution.

www.trueorigin.org...

Devolution lol?

Found "fossil rabbits from the pre Cambrian" yet?

Got sky fairy?

The only conclusion is that people have philosophical objections to the God of the Bible and therefore will refuse to believe creation no matter what.

Valid philosophical, moral, scientific, historical and logical objections probably. The biggest one being that it's non existance. Nothing to do with evolution though, not even relevant.

Still haven't seen a positive argument for god or creationism. They all seem to involve trying to discredit science. The most this would do (but hasn't done),is discredit our present understanding, it wouldn't indicate creationism or god.

originally posted by: vasaga

Originally posted by Wally Hope
Yeah Social Darwinism, as used by fascists, is the belief that basically survival the fittest is the deciding factor in society.

It has nothing to do with Darwin or evolution.

LoL! A Bruce Lipton video? really? why don't you just post a Kent Hovind video?

Lipton is a notorious quack creationist, who (as the video shows) has a very, very standard creationist level understanding on the theory of evolution.

His twisting of the facts is par for the course and can be ignored.

originally posted by: MrXYZ
Evolution is FACT...and its goal isn't to "disprove god"

All scientists are saying is that there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for god...and that too is a FACT

Edit: Doh!

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: vasaga

LoL! A Bruce Lipton video? really? why don't you just post a Kent Hovind video?

Lipton is a notorious quack creationist, who (as the video shows) has a very, very standard creationist level understanding on the theory of evolution.

His twisting of the facts is par for the course and can be ignored.

Pure ad hominem towards Mr. Lipton. Care to talk about the actual content of the video instead of poisoning the well?

a reply to: vasaga

His reputation precedes him i'm afraid.

To go through his gish gallop would be a waste of time, explaining to someone that apparently has a B.A. in biology that 'fittest' doesn’t refer to gym training but in fact refers to suitability to a particular environment and more opportunities to reproduce.....would be a waste of time.

originally posted by: stuff1
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.

So, your premise is that because you can't work out how to do it, God can't either? God isn't allowed to be smarter than a human?

I believe that God is smart enough to know that dropping just the right size and shape of snowflake on just the right part of a mountain, can trigger a chain of events that run for a thousand years before reaching the intended goal, that He can understand and calculate the millions and billions of variables that dictate things that we poor, limited humans can only comprehend as "random".

I refuse your premise, as it mandates that we limit God's capabilities to only those things that humans can work out mathematically.

originally posted by: stuff1
Organic Evolution - The odds of life forming from the warm primordial soup are beyond 10 to the power of 50.

So very, very unlikely. Not impossible, just unlikely. Or just a matter of waiting to see what happens - your 10^50 doesn't mean that you have to go through all of those possibilities first, it just means that it should have happened at least once by the time you hit that number. It could just as equally happen on the first attempt, the millionth attempt or the trillionth attempt.

Creationism is for people who are bad at maths. And science. And critical thinking. In fact it's generally for people who suck at life.

Where is the crocoduck!??? Without the crocoduck there can be no evolution! OMGz I just proved it!

a reply to: Barcs

Not so fast. Snapped this the other day, while looking for Bigfoot.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: vasaga

His reputation precedes him i'm afraid.

To go through his gish gallop would be a waste of time, explaining to someone that apparently has a B.A. in biology that 'fittest' doesn’t refer to gym training but in fact refers to suitability to a particular environment and more opportunities to reproduce.....would be a waste of time.

So you know better than someone who has a PhD in developmental biology. Good to know.

But yeah, if explaining is a waste of time, trying to have a conversation with you is a waste of time... So, yeah. Carry on.

a reply to: vasaga

Oh, so now suddenly qualifications and academic standing are important to you? Then you'll be pleased to know that the overwhelming number of scientists with expertise in the pertinent areas wholly accept the massive body of evidence supporting evolution. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I'm assuming you'll be changing your position in light of this, or will you simply dismiss it out of hand because it's not convenient for your belief system?

originally posted by: Trolloks
Ok, start of the "evfolution/de-evolution" theory. The word "evolution" is used too oftern, but what your explaining is addaptation to the surrounding habbitats, so it may appear to be loosing information, but it is only loosing information that is no longer needed there for is no longer needed to be included in our DNA, yes we loose something and people call it "de-evolution", but we are loosing useless information, purley because it is now useless.

The bing bang, it did not start from nothing, it started from matter and anti-matter coliding with each other, causing a huge explotion of matter, which created the gas's, which created the stars, galaxies ect, which in turn created the gravitational pull needed to create galaxies and planets etc.

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.

And the whole begining of evolution. It starts very very slowly, a small bacteria for example. Bactiera is known to occure in the most extream habbitats, all that is needed is some form of atmosphear to protect it from radiation (however latley it has been found that on mars there are bacteria that can withstand up to 1000 times as much radiation as humans) and an atmosphear is not a rare thing to be created, all that is needed is a little bit of water vapour, the hard part is keeping it, which earth managed.

Natrual selection, yea sure that part has alot of holes in it, but its only one part of evolution, the theory behind evolution was there before darwin.

Agreed, this is like saying that if a human was born without an appendix, that this would be a step backwards.

In reality, it's not, considering the appendix does nothing beneficial at all while at the same time, posing risk for rupture and infection, with deadly side effects, the human would be stronger without it.

I'd call that, advancing a design, evolving a design. Not regressing a design, devolving a design.

It's trimming unneeded bits that put the rest of the needed bits at risk -- this is streamlining to a more efficient and healthy creature.

Evolution makes perfect logical sense, but considering the OP is lost and doesn't know where evolution starts and when it stops -- and what it applies to in the scientific context of macro DNA adaptions of life pretty much proves that he doesn't understand evolution.

Polar bears are a PRIME example of provable evolution. See, they were just brown bears, then the area froze -- and they were still just brown bears, but then there was a genetic mutation that altered the pigment of the baby brown bear, which made him white. A birth defect. The white coat allowed him easier hunting abilities because he was camouflaged, this meant he ate the most food, had the least get away -- this gene pool then propagated because it was the most nourished and the brown bears in the area died out.

Just as easily as the mutation made the polar bear white, it could have made it black -- the black ones would have died out because they lost their hunting advantage by loosing their ability to hide and stalk -- just because the white ones remained, doesn't mean that there weren't other color ones popping out at the same time, it just means that the white ones prevailed.

This is called natural selection -- which is a CRUCIAL part of the concept of evolution.


What do you think is going to happen to polar bears when there is no longer sheets and sheets and miles and miles of everything white?

They'll die out and something else will replace them.

The polar bear is a prime example of logic, as it's also a prime example of evolution, as it's also a prime example of natural selection.

Nothing illogical about it. You can talk about stars, the big bang, space -- but none of that has a damned thing to do with polar bears existing.

Evolution, natural selection, probability, and logic, have EVERYTHING to do with polar bears existing.

And that's just one example, and literally every single living creature on earth are other examples. Including humans.

There is just as much variety in humans as all other life, we have slant down eyes, slant up up eyes, round eyes, oval eyes -- we have white skin, black skin, olive skin, red skin, yellow skin, bronze skin, caramel skin, brown skin -- we have pigmies [3 foot], we have giants [7 foot] we have men dominance [roman] we have woman dominance [amazonian] and everything in between, since all of the above has mixed bred and created new variants in the genome.

It's quite obvious that pigmies and giants are being bucked by natural selection, as it's quite obvious that pale skin is too. So when you see how much variety there is in humans, and how that variety has created even more variety -- when we have Neanderthals, pre/post hominids, and modern humans -- can you NOT see evolution in action?

You'd have to be blind not to see it -- it's fairly obvious to anyone with a working and logical brain. I'll go there, it's -- COMMON SENSE.

It's also extremely easy to see that humans are a subdivision of primates. We aren't gorillas, we aren't monkeys -- it's easy to see, that all 3, Apes/Monkeys/Humans share a common starting point or ancestry and are just 3 different examples of variations that survived the natural selection process.

It's not like anyone is saying Humans are related to Giraffes or Marsupials, or an Ocelot... It's easy to see that those are very different from us, but at the same time -- you can see other examples of Ocelot variants that survived the natural selection process.

At the same time, it's also easy to see that dolphins are closer to humans than fish, and one could wonder what a variant of humans/primates would have been had they not have left the water. I.E. We share similar ancestors, much older than apes/monkeys/hominids. This is why dolphins are good at math, have emotions like compassion and empathy, and are even smart enough to intuit when a human is in danger.

The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet – something you see with apes who seem to be able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born without it.

Another perfect example of humans evolving in action. Provided the humans that carry the genes that cause it's removal continue to survive and spread the gene, the percentage of people born without this muscle will continue to grow until virtually every human doesn't have one.

The appendix on the other hand is likely to NOT go away, because of natural selection. He who has a bigger appendix has less chance of infection, therefor, natural selection favors having a LARGER appendix. Even though if we cut it out and never grew it, we'd be in a better situation, natural selection is steering the evolution of this organ -- which is causing it to be larger on average.

We'll likely be stuck with appendices until we get to a point in genetic alteration to where we can remove it's creation instructions from the genome -- in which case, it'll be unnatural selection.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: vasaga

His reputation precedes him i'm afraid.

To go through his gish gallop would be a waste of time, explaining to someone that apparently has a B.A. in biology that 'fittest' doesn’t refer to gym training but in fact refers to suitability to a particular environment and more opportunities to reproduce.....would be a waste of time.

So you know better than someone who has a PhD in developmental biology. Good to know.

But yeah, if explaining is a waste of time, trying to have a conversation with you is a waste of time... So, yeah. Carry on.

Well am I wrong?

Does survival of the fittest actually refer to the 'fittest' and 'strongest' or does it refer to exactly what I posted above?

Do you know anything about what youre attempting to debunk?