Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

reply to post by bwinwright


Sorry, but focusing on Sonar is just ridiculous. Bats use Sonar too. Birds use a form of it, it's just sound waves, after all. Heck, even HUMANS use it!!!! You know....two ears, stereo hearing....a survival trait. Not only does it aid in detecting possible predators, it also assists in hunting prey.

Echolocation is just another form of hearing, in different frequencies. Insects, bees for one example, can see spectra of light that Humans can't. It's not magic, it's not "design" (not in the sense of being pre-planned) it is just how Nature will find a way for organisms to adapt as needed to whatever environmental conditions are most suitable for the continuation of that particular species.

AND....in the case of dolphins, whose distant ancestors were once land-based with ears adapted to hearing sounds in air, it is logical that they would eventually mprove their underwater 'hearing' abilities, over thousands, nay, millions of generations.

Your 'devotion' to Harwood is blinding you to the REAL truths out there --- they are far more incredible than some magical "designer"....

I lkie this one because you have to read, and you can listen to nice music whilst about it. Ironically, of course...the music IS designed!!!!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Yes, yes, yes. You are rational, reasonable, and think for yourself.

In reality, I guess my argument boils down to simply accepting the idea that some form of incredibly capable intelligence HAD to play an integral role in the establishment of such complex systems and processes.

Atheism and Darwinism hold that NO INTELLIGENCE was necessary in any of it.

This entire argument, in my opinion, is absolutely ridiculous. Atheists and Darwin supporters get angry with me for using the WRIST WATCH example to establish just how ludicrous their position really is.

Placing all the separated parts of a wrist watch into a paper bag, either placing the bag on a mechanical arm that rotates, goes up and down, or side to side, or simply leaving the bag on a table top to rest motionless...Then...after some period of time...maybe a week, a month, a year..even 1,000 years later, the bag is opened and there you find a totally reassembled wrist watch, working perfectly....and this occurs without any intelligent direction?

While the atheist and Darwinist will scream, "Don't be ridiculous!", they ridicule my incredulity for rejecting their belief that the Dolphin's Sonar, a far more complex system than a wrist watch, JUST CAME TOGETHER WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENT DIRECTION? P.L.E.A.S.E.....

reply to post by bwinwright


OH, this is going to be FUN!

Assuming that complexity is a definitive indication of intelligence is quite preposterous.

Unless you think that the Emergence of Ordered symmetry from the Chaotic collapse of Sand piles is directed by intelligence.

en.wikipedia.org...

It amazes me how intelligent people like you can be so easily led to conform to the false belief that highly sophisticated and complex systems and processes,
which are far more complicated and sophisticated than ANYTHING humans have EVER been able to produce CAN POSSIBLY EXIST....WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE having been necessary in this existence.

It absolutely boggles the mind that you think that Intelligence is necessary for complexity.

This is clearly irrational, therefore false.

No, this is Standard, and OBSERVED, therefore, correct.

Humans, using as much INTELLIGENCE as we have, still can not produce a SONAR system as sophisticated as the Dolphin's sonar system. The entire ARGUMENT centers around ONE point.

Really?

That's quite a bold claim....


This is a website for NASA's Landsat program, which uses Directed Radiation, and their reflection signatures to determine topography and subterranean formations.

From Space, mind you.

landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov...


This article from Wikipedia describes a necessary component of all modern submarines for underwater navigation that is based off of Sound emission, and reflection from objects underwater.

It is called "Sonar"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Natural Law of this Universe is "Order Requires Intelligent Direction."

Your Assertion is False.

You reject this law and have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO PROVE YOUR FALSE BELIEF. All you can do is resort to name-calling, condescension, and ridicule. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DARWIN's THEORY.

Yes, We DO.

Go here, Watch this playlist, and Educate YOURSELF, instead of atacking that which you *CLEARLY* do not understand.

www.youtube.com...


-Edrick

And, just for the sake of argument (Assuming that you don't want to sit through the entire playlist.... here is ONE video that should explain it all.




-Edrick

reply to post by bwinwright


are you aware that invoking "magic" for things a person does not understand hearkens back to pre-history?

when the local tribes would attribute volcanoes, earthquakes, disease, et al....to the "gods" exhibiting fits of rage or displeasure?

"we dont know why the hot rocks rain from the sky.....or the mud buries our huts, killing our families.....it must be the gods displeased with us.....quick, round up a virgin"

are you aware that it is exactly the same?

it will be a lovely day when 21st century people actually start thinking like we've made some advancement in our development.

not this kind of freakishly backwards "science".....

and its not "sonar" the dolphins use......"sonar" is an acronym used to describe the mechanical contrivances that humans employ to mimic the natural attributes of several creatures

it is "echo-location" more properly......and there is nothing especially robust, mysterious, or complex in its implementation......make a sound, wait for the echo, locate the echo

and the use of it by dophins and bats isnt that particularly special.....humans can do it also...

Some blind people have described the phenomenon not as a learned method of navigation, but as an inherent and intuitive extra sense. For example, a blind person could walk past a line of trees and feel a "pressure" at their side as they passed each tree. The cause of this would be the echo of the sound of their footsteps; however, they may not consciously be aware of this mechanism, only that the phenomenon exists and can often be relied upon to detect obstacles. Here

what does that say for its "special-ness?"....not much, blind humans have been using a form of it for....ever.

and your source? Mr Harwood.......he's a dunce.......his analogy with modern PCs is hilariously stupid





[edit on 5-7-2009 by cranberrydork]

reply to post by bwinwright

Yes, I am on a mission to fight against such tyranny, such deceit, such outrageous and destructive behavior. DARWIN and DAWKINS are both wrong and their FALSE information has resulted in so much horror, like the Holocaust, racism, genocide, imperialism, and other forms of ugliness.

I'm finding it very hard to take you seriously...is this a summer holiday college prank? If not, I assume you skipped history classes. Humanity has been cheerfully killing itself under the name of religion a long time before Darwin or Dawkins were born. There was a rather infamous period in Europe when quite a few people (millions) were tortured and executed under Papal endorsement...Spanish Inquisition. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!" There was also a trivial adventure in the Middle East known as the Crusades.

By all means worship God or gods, but evolution will remain a fact despite the best efforts of Creationists. It's ironic that your mission to 'fight against such tyranny, such deceit, such outrageous and destructive behavior' is the exact spirit that led to the torture of 'heretics' across most of Europe from the 12th Century onwards. This is the problem with a lot of religious folk...they can't leave other people alone to live in peace.

I checked out the site you linked and was unsurprised to find that they are still banging on about 'missing' transitional fossils. It's a myth that Creationists cling to. There are a great deal of transitional fossils of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, fish to sharks, Australopithecus to homo etc.

I think America is the only place on Earth that has some people still debating evolution...Creationism or ID should have remained in the 20th Century.

Originally posted by bwinwright
reply to post by cranberrydork

 

Yes, I am on a mission. Darwin was wrong and his false ideas have resulted in a lot of destructive behavior.

I am not a computer wizard but I contacted Tim Harwood myself and got this
link. Go to darwinwrong.tripod.com...

Thanks for that link and keep up the good fight. Logic, reason, and the will of God will prevail.

reply to post by John Matrix

Thanks for that link and keep up the good fight. Logic, reason, and the will of God will prevail.

"Logic, reason...." are completely missing from anything remotely involved with 'that link'!!!

...the will of God will prevail...

Repeated for emphasis -- IF there were indeed such a 'will', then there'd be no debate, now would there???

Logic and reason, indeed! Pfffffft!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Thanks for that link and keep up the good fight. Logic, reason, and the will of God will prevail.

"Logic, reason...." are completely missing from anything remotely involved with 'that link'!!!

...the will of God will prevail...

Repeated for emphasis -- IF there were indeed such a 'will', then there'd be no debate, now would there???

Logic and reason, indeed! Pfffffft!

Your race of evolved "goo-to-animal geniuses" will appreciate your support and humorous commentary. Enjoy the short lived euphoria while it lasts

Oh, and I checked out your little page here...

I have to admit, I laughed out loud when I read most of it.

And here is my rebuttal of this, Joke.

'The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?..(this)…is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.'

This is because not every animal that dies becomes a fossil in the geological stratum.

Fossilization requires a series of specific situations in order for the skeletal, and some tissue examples to become fossilized.

But none of this even matters, because the "Transitional" species between our "Primate" ancestors and Man have already been found.

This is a great site for finding what transitional species of hominid ancestors have been found.

IT is the Smithsonian Institute, Department of Anthropology.

anthropology.si.edu...

Ask yourself if a system involving this kind of advanced physics can really evolve through the selection of random mutations, with each and every mutation without exception providing a small but clear survival advantage to the dolphin.

Wow, this is a poor excuse for a point of debate.

Since you don't seem to know what "Echolocation" *IS*, here is a kid that Cannot see.... but he uses his Ears to "See" instead.

Echolocation is merely a product of the Sense of Hearing.

Now, Humans do not Posses this "Echolocation", and yet.. here is this kid, with the "Magical" ability to see with his ears.

www.youtube.com...

Now, over successive generations in an environment that is an impediment to sight, your sense of hearing throughout the generations would improve to the point of being imperatively useful for navigation.

The entire point of argument is ridiculous, and childish.

The Mysterious Origins of Life

Darwin, and the Theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of life, and in fact Abiogenesis is a SEPARATE field of study FROM Evolution, since Evolution *REQUIRES* life to function.

The point is irrelevant.

Haldane's Dilemma
Posed in 1957 by the early 1970s everyone had realized how damned hard the Dilemma was, and serious attempts to tackle the issue directly quickly died away. Basically Haldane pointed out the fairly obvious fundamental idea ( yet in precise mathematical language ) there is a ‘cost,’ to selection. Since most mutations are bad, if a species has too high a rate of mutation, so many offspring will be infertile, that the population / species will die.

This is demonstrably Ignorant of Genetics, Genetic Drift, Genetic Mutation studies, and Biology.


Most Genetic mutations are BENIGN, not Beneficial or detrimental in any way.

The BASIS of the entire argument is Irrelevant.

Now, apes and humans are thought to have split about 10 million years ago, and have about a 2 percent difference in DNA. The human genome has about 3 billion base pairs and about 300 million base pairs of functional DNA (assuming 10 percent of 3 billion base pairs are functional). Assuming that most of this 2 percent change is non-functional DNA, this implies a rate of evolution of one percent in 10 million years, which implies 3 million point mutations in 10 million years in the functional DNA. Two-thirds of these would be harmful, or, 2 million in 10 million years. This is about one point mutation in the functional DNA every five years, or about 6 every generation. Counting both parents, this gives 12 mutations per zygote, with a chance of only 1/(2.718 ^ 12) (less than 1 in 100,000) that a zygote will survive and be able to have offspring at equilibrium. Of course, this is ridiculous.

The fundamental presumption that Genetic mutations occur at a rate of one every 6 years is FALSE.

Every Zygote has at least 100 mutations.

The fundamental assumption for this argument is *WRONG*

Allegedly 'Proven,' Fossil Relationships Are Often Based Upon Highly Dubious Assumptions

The way Richard Milton puts it in his book The Facts of Life p 142 is a particular favorite of mine.

'One might suppose that the bathroom sponge and the loofah are related, since both are similar aids to scrubbing one's back commonly found in the bathroom. In fact, one is a vegetable which comes from an Indian tree, while the other is an animal which comes from the sea bottom.'

Luckily, we use slightly more complicated methods to determine specieation, relationships, etc...

Here is an article entitled:

"Tracing Evolutionary and Developmental Implications of Mitochondrial Stoichiometric Shifting in the Common Bean"

www.genetics.org...

Since we use GENETICS to determine relationships between species, and not just "Resemblance" as your article seems to imply.

Here is a Article that describes how Genomic mapping is used to track parantege over succesive generations to determine evolutionary descendancy.

genome.wellcome.ac.uk...

So, the foundational assumption that the previous argument is based on is demonstrably False, and mean spirited.

But new genes are necessary for this process. The theory that new genes arise by random mutation of old genes and natural selection is not established. The result of every known mutation is either neutral or deleterious, except when the disabling of a gene is advantageous. It is possible that "gene duplication" followed by other mutations could have occasionally produced a closely related new gene with a function very similar to the original one. But a convincing account of even one wholly new gene with an unrelated specific new function, arising from mutations of an existing gene, or assembled from random strands of nucleotides, has not been given.

Wow, that is just DAFT.


First off, there is no difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution except how LONG the process has been going on.


"New" Genes arise from "Old" genes in a method known as Genetic Drift where one of thousands of mutations happens to be beneficial, and is passed on to descendants, and through successive breeding, becomes the dominant trait of the Breeding population.

This has been OBSERVED, and is FACT.



-Edrick

reply to post by bwinwright


YAY for bad logic! Religion created genocide.......... mainly christianity. It was acceptable because GOD had told you to murder people so that the land would be yours.

I guess Einstien cause the cold war then??? maybe it was the caveman who invented the wheel that cause ALL auto accidents.

This is what religion does to people... makes fools happy in their ignorance.

There are no intermediate fossils of any significance in the fossil record (F1). About a ¼ of a million fossil species exist in the museums of the world, and you can pretty much count on the fingers of one hand the number of fossils evolutionists are today seriously putting forward as intermediate forms – and even then the evidence is disputed (F2). It is a common misconception that the fossil record is evidence for Darwinian evolution – it is not (F3). All that is revealed by the fossils is that new species appear out of nowhere, fully formed, stay the same for huge periods of time, and then disappear ( ridiculously F4!). The absence of intermediate forms has been called a 'trade secret,' by the world famous scientist Stephan J. Gould, and is the main reason he developed the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium. (F5)' Evolutionary change because of its non-appearance in the fossil record must happen very fast in small isolated areas, as per Gould (F6)

What's wrong with Darwinism?

This is half a paragraph from the linked site. I've counted and marked (F) six errors. As usual the dedicated Creationist is shown to display the deeply unChristian traits of dishonesty, mendacity and the sin of omission...

F1& F2...Transitional Vertebrate Fossils Part 1A

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils Part 1B

Fossil Called Missing Link From Sea to Land Animals

Transitional Fossil Wiki

Our 'tail bone'...the Coccyx


F3...What kind of rhetoric is this? The fossil record clearly supports Darwinian evolution, but isn't wholly necessary due to natural selection being demonstrated among virus, bacteria and insect populations. The processes of natural selection are also demonstrated in animal husbandry and our domesticated animals.

F4...This is an appeal to ridicule!

F5 & F6...Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould Gould was an evolutionary scientist! He disagreed with some aspects of the Theory of Evolution and disagreed utterly with Creationists!

Oy, wow, I guess this thread took a holiday and now it is back with a vengence! LOL

OK, well, In catching up, I noticed a couple of interesting points...

One person said Darwin was wrong because, "he thought that if a bear swam long enough it could become a whale". Interesting in that that is apparently EXACTLY how whales came about, although their land version was a bit more like a horse than a bear.

There appears to be some odd schism here. People seem to think that ID and evolution are exclusionary. They aren't even part of the same *kind* of thing, so they cannot be exclusionary. Evolution is a way of methodologically categorizing and explaining the adaptation and growth of life over the years using solid evidence. It is Science. ID is a way to postulate on how life started and became this remarkably diverse collection of systems. It is Philosophy. One is strictly reviewing evidence and the other is pondering and considering ideas.

I don't even understand why we have an issue here. Evolution works for what is intended, which is the understanding of how things grow and adapt. The people wanting it to be discounted apparently want to throw a few hundred years of scientific progress out the window and go back to guessing randomly based on anecdotal evidence.

Finally, I would like to point out that I am stunned by the blatent rudeness of people on this board sometimes. Mocking and name calling with laughing faces and rolling eyes does NOTHING to convince people that you are right. In fact, all it does is make people think you are an A**. If you already have made up your mind and nothing is going to change it, then go scream at the wind. Otherwise, have a rational grown up conversation.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by bwinwright

 

YAY for bad logic! Religion created genocide.......... mainly christianity. It was acceptable because GOD had told you to murder people so that the land would be yours.

I guess Einstien cause the cold war then??? maybe it was the caveman who invented the wheel that cause ALL auto accidents.

This is what religion does to people... makes fools happy in their ignorance.

I'm glad to see you are still around. I missed your unique style of commentary.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bwinwright

 

I lkie this one because you have to read, and you can listen to nice music whilst about it. Ironically, of course...the music IS designed!!!!

Thank you very much for that vid. This is something that everyone should look at very closely and research. I hope that the religious people here will atleast watch this video with an open mind and google any questions they come up with.

Originally posted by bwinwright
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Simply because Geology and Evolution are nothing alike. Geology is about the structure and composition of rocks. There are no intermediate links in strata because things tend to happen rather sporadically. A mass extinction here, a volcanic eruption there, and is in no way similar to the gradual adaptation of organisms to better suit the environment that they live in.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Actually, both sides use the same evidence and neither side can prove they are correct. Those who examine both models, and how the evidence fits into them, are best prepared to make an informed decision as to which model best explains the evidence. It has nothing to do with philosophy or religion.

Most people are lazy, so they just sit back and choose one model or the other, and then defend their choice out of pride.

A few will actaully shed their biases and prejudices to study both models objectively, and see how the very same evidence fits into each model.

I have done this. I believe ID and a creator is the most reasonable and logical model to explain the evidence. The evolution model is filled with secondary assumptions and is evolving (changing) all the time.

One who speaks the truth has no need to change their story.
But a liar will always change his story.

sorry for this short answer, i did read the post .. im unsure why their are evil or wrong, or how one equates to the other .. i will say my peace and be gone.

Darwin and dawkins might well be wrong, they might well even be evil, but it still wont make religion any more correct? ... i gather thats what makes them wrong and evil is the way their science conflicts with your religion. (?) please correct me if im wrong.

reply to post by John Matrix


I appreciate your response. I disagree with your last axiom, though. If one assumes that neither side fully understands the truth, then the ones who are lying are the ones who state that they are right and immotable.

In my opinion, the one who is right is the one willing to change their mind with the introduction of reasonable evidence. Besides, I get the feeling that the "truth" is probably something in the middle.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Well, it was at one time a life long dream of mine to create actual intelligence. Not artificial intelligence which gives the illusion and appearance of intelligence, but actual intelligence capable of coming up with it's own logic.

Please realize I am not talking about AI in the sense of artifical. I can program things which appear intelligent. AI will do many wonderful things, drive cars, order groceries and so on. But they will forever be subject to the logic given to it by the program. They appear intelligent because they work off the logic I've given it. And they carry that out with 100% perfection - assuming my logic is solid. The reason for this is because they do not have free will. They have no choice but to follow the logic given to it, just as all things in this universe do.

I came to realize after much planning and personal debate, that such is not possible. At all. There are 2 domains here. There is that which is logic/creation/physical and then there is consciousness. I see this as - what is flesh is flesh, and what is spirit is spirit. Without the scientist being there to observe and understand, there is no science.

It's really hard to explain. I literally spent years thinking about these things before coming to the understanding I have today. Please bear with me - I will be rambling a bit.

So, let's define what I feel is "intelligence".

Intelligence means that the being is able to come up with and create logic on it's own. Not just using logic, but actually being able to create that logic, and understand what is being done. Basically, it needs to be able to do what we do in programs.

This does not mean it is able to create code based on the logic given to it. I do this all the time.

I came to the conclusion that in order to have intelligence, we come to certain requirements.

It has to have free will. If it doesn't have free will, then it's not choosing and it's not intelligent. It is simply following out the patterns given to it. If it is unable to make a choice, then it is unable to be intelligent.

Now, I can generate a pseudo random number, and then you know say if it's this value, then choose this, if it's that value, then choose that. But that's a random choice, not a real choice. And you probably know, it's not really a random number either, it is a predictable number. It is random to us however, which suits our purposes, but not to a computer and not in reality.

So, I can make it appear and give the illusion of choice, but of I of course know that it did no such thing. I can put 6 billion of these things in a room, and you know the chances are pretty high that at least some of the population will make what appears to be intelligent choices. And some of them will make dumb choices. We see this in humans. This is a far step from creating logic, but in this way I could easily fool you into thinking they were intelligent. Just an illusion however.

Now, in order to have free will, it means that there must be no limits on it. Each and every time you give it a limit on what is possible, then you have by default denied free will. The expression, do the train tracks free the train or enslave it? Neither! They provide the illusion of freedom, and should the train ever decide to leave those tracks, he will quickly realize it.

However. Part of free will is the ability to give it away. Again, this must be a choice - even if not realized. And there are very legitimate reasons for intelligence to do this. Because by doing this, you create experiences. "What if's". AKA Logic. What is a logic and programming but a bunch of if this, then do that, and while this, do that. What is the universe and create itself but a bunch of loops and laws of logic? So for an experience we might propose "what if".

I'll use poker for an example of subconsciously giving away free will for an experience. In order to play the game of poker, you must submit yourself to the rules of the game. Nothing physically stops you from turning the cards face up and seeing how the hand will play. But if you do that, and don't submit to the rules then the game can not exist. Everyone would know the outcome and only bet when they had the winning hand. No game. So we purposely give away our free will in order for the experience. Keep this in mind.

Acceptance vs Understanding. Or as Einstein said - any fool can know, the point is to understand.

This can best be explained with math. I can tell a man 1+1=2. That man can accept that is true. But unless he knows how to add, he does not understand. I'm sure you can see the difference between the 2.

So how do you program understanding and how to understand, when the understanding itself is the logic that creates the program?

I'm going to stop here as far as the "AI" goes, I can go on if you'd like to continue the discussion. I realize I ramble a bit, it's extremely difficult to talk about, and express these things. So let me know if we get anywhere close to the same way of thinking.

In the end, I came to realize that the only way for the program to get consciousness is if I added my consciousness to it. You can not program feeling, you can not program what it means "to be", it does not have a soul/consciousness (btw, when you read "soul" in the bible, it is talking about consciousness). Of course, I also came to realize I would be doing that which was already done.

Write a program, and it's just a bunch of patterns repeating over and over. It's like the AI of a video game. It does not come to life until there is consciousness there to observe it. Even with sensors for the AI, they don't really "see".

And if consciousness is a part of this universe, then where is it? What are these magical chemicals that have consciousness in them? Electrical signals mixed with certain elements = consciousness?

Your eyes collect light and that is converted to electrical signals. Those electrical signals travel to the back of the brain where they are converted back into the image "you" see. To what/whom is that presented to? What is "you"? It's your soul/consciousness, and it is not of this creation.

Or as the bible says, all things were created on the word(logic/program). And then spirit of the lord fills creation and brings it to life(observer/consciousness). What is flesh is flesh(creation), and what is spirit is spirit(soul/consciousness). Your body comes from the dust of the earth(creation), but you soul is part of god.

The war on god is a war on consciousness. Science ignores it and quantum physics is taboo because it talks of it. You are not of this creation, and you are hated for it. Because the father is within you, you have choice and thus are not easily controllable like rockets and other things which give those who control them power do. And this world revolves around manipulations which are designed to take that free will out of you, to turn you into something that is pure action and reaction like the programs we create to do what they are told 100% of the time. They produce certain events/action, and the people will react as they want. Like say an attack here, might lead to 2 wars etc. And choice becomes merely an illusion among them.

Just think about it, what is "you" and what does it mean to actually be an observer and to understand. To be aware that you are aware, and you will come to understand. Do not accept, understand.