The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

Originally posted by nophun

My OPiNION!!! CAN you UNDERSTAND ME now PSYcHO ?????!!!!!
See I can come off as a complete jackass too

Oh make no mistake, I never thought there was any doubt.

How is in just my opinion that there is not evidence for a god ? Please show the evidence of a god PLEASE !!!!!!

Oh I am sure it isn't just in YOUR opinion but it is not my opinion their is not others sharing your opinion their isn't.


Umm would that last question you asked, be in regard to something you think I said? Please, by all means, use the quote button an SHOW ME
This is going to be a theme I am going to just keep saying show me like you did

How about this one

How about it? I asked you for a specific example for you to show me how it is incorrect, retarded, or any of the other cute adjectives you feel necessary to win an argument.

THIS ONE I WILL NEED TO SAY SORRY FOR !!! I GOT MY CRAZY CREATIONISTS ALL MIXED UP, TRYING TO GO THREAD TO THREAD.

Sorry

All you people sound alike .. likely has something to do with you guys just repeating what your Ken Ham website tells you to. IMO obviously

apology accepted, and I know what ya mean lol.

Did I say you didn't know that" Or is this another statment you imagine I have said? If so, SHOW ME

YES YOU DID !!! THE full quote can BE FOUND right HERE!!!


Nooo we are NOT LOL Read your post saying I said something about beating you with a baseball bat and something about hookers? HA HA I read that and thought what?? ha ha It isn't my style to keep anyone from getting laid using a baseball bat lol.

When did I say you did phrase it like that? SHOW MEH !
if you read back to what I was replying to you it would make sense. ..
or would to most people.

Ok well I see we are splitting hairs on a you said he said treadmill, so I usually find that a little mmmm not the best use of my time and I won't waste any more of yours either.

Been fun, perhaps Ill have more to say in the morning,

NO I THINK is IS completely NORMAL to TYPE in caps AND DENY FACTS !!!!one!1!11!

What "facts did I deny" ? and ya know, if I knew those caps sent the message I am insane, I would have pulled em out of my keyboard.

Since "emphasis" is the only logical association for using words expressed in caps using the type written word, see no problem using them in moderation of course. But Often times I see people saying I used them in excessive degrees in what is illogically given as shouting when I tap those keys ever so gingerly. Is it any wonder why so many using small case never get their message across? Perhaps we should quit whispering eh?

LOL take care AND G/.nite

Originally posted by CT Slayer
You haven't made an argument, you have only given your OPINION and that is ALL you have done PERIOD.

Collaboration evidently ignored by former slayer yet successor succeeds with transitive position on this opinion.

You say I ignore your argument in the same voice, the very same paragraph I used your incoherent example for design you gave using the rock and erosion analogy to pick it apart.

The splash doesn't mandate erosion. Room left for random error.... human error.

So how is it I ignored it at the same time.

That clock is not this clock all around the clock.

Are you upset with me for some reason else all this other "stuff" you have said has NOTHING to do with YOUR argument and if it is so "Crystal Clear" that a Rock is not a design because erosion had something to do with designing them, you would be dead wrong.

Start and stop is an evolution of a clock that suddenly thinks about creationism. That is impossible unless these little tic'ers are cute little heart pumpers.

Erosion didn't create granite genius, and it doesn't design it in anyway.

Erosions evolves granite genius.

So unless YOU can explain to me what the hell you are trying to convey, my pointing out that it makes no sense at all still stands because it doesn't .

Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Evolution evolves the rock yet the hard place is god's.

The fact that a Christians agree with you, is most likely because they didn't want to embarrass someone who acts like he knows what he is talking about when he doesn't.

Evolution hasn't yet explained Christians with no mouths. Perhaps they were sculpted that way and the sculpture died before up mouth finished.

Again, SHOW ME.

Evolve a chisel and a broom for the dust. Ashes to ashes...

(oops, skipped ahead...)

Did I say you didn't know that" Or is this another statment you imagine I have said? If so, SHOW ME

Computer shows statement typed by external input. Output evolves on screen.

Nope

Wait states, something doesn't compute.

don't think i did.

Correct, it was a useless instruction except to clock when there was no clock.

A bug evolves!!!!

What I did was used your reversing of the way evidence is used to prove a claim mentioned in a science magazine or and I just used the example of how evidence is used in an allegation for the burden of proof.

Time reverse is a clock, too. For every action that evolves a bug there is a reaction to evolve an anti-bug.

Example: in the context you gave would be like me saying "Nothing in the fossil record disproves evolution"

We found bugs in fossilized records. Amber alert!!!!

There was obviously a reason to evolve amber. Bug evolved down mount beer!

That is not what the fossil record is used as a resource for is it? NO.

Know comments.

It is used to as evidence to PROVE a claim, NOT DISPROVE IT.

Stone evolves it's solution: self-innocence by words.

I can say the same thing about GOD and say NOTHING in the fossil record disproves GOD.

Collective god does nothing divine.

It isn't MY fault you used a context that doesn't make sense and it stands to reason why my rebuttal you can't understand either.

Evolved up standards. Bipeds.

Their is something wrong with my sanity? Please share with us so that we might bear witness to your scholarly expertise in the field of Psychology.

Or are you just calling me names now?

Words evolved so names evolved until innocence is a state of sanity.

Oh and for the benefit of the readers, would you be so kind as to bringing them up to speed on just what point was it that my links and post were diametrically opposed in the alleged contradiction.

Evolved disabilities until random became random disability to evolve sense to read. Unfortunately, that took several gene pool resets when one read they were god.

Probability of one not being a mind reader made no change! A miracle! Not evolution. Not creationism. Just 'what is it'... "I AM"... "NOT!"

I don't even really know what to say to this..

Nope....... maybe something like ascend, descend, transcend, and oops.

Yeah, we get that about you but we've all been there. Takes time, and practice. You'll see

Been here... waiting...

Nothing undivined. Nothing evolves. Everybody else that's against the law. Born guitly... yet... had to learn all by self to evolve to learn. Have to have a will to live...

It continues to amaze me how some people are insistent upon using extremely poor analogies and obtuse, skewed logic to magically substitute a philosophical viewpoint in place of science.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by maria_stardust]

reply to post by nophun

Here is the thing. There is no scientific theory of god or aliens. There is nothing showing there should be. Science does not try to disprove god there just is no theory for it because there is no way to show god is real or not.

Actually I disagree......

There might not be a "scientific" theory of god, however there is a theory for Intelligent Design, and some may link that intelligence to either God, or perhaps Aliens or some yet unknown entity.

There is also some possible and current archaeological sites in progress that may have links to biblical places or events. Since it is extremely difficult to satisfy science on a spiritual level, perhaps a good start is finding evidence of biblical stories that can be "touched".

Personally I believe in micro evolution/adaptation etc, my struggle lies with macro evolution and abiogenesis. Creationism can co-exist with evolution on some levels and perhaps we need to look at this possibility rather than what sets them apart.

[edit on 1-3-2010 by wayaboveitall] [/quote

Did I say you didn't know that" Or is this another statment you imagine I have said? If so, SHOW ME

Computer shows statement typed by external input. Output evolves on screen.



Wait states, something doesn't compute.



A bug evolves!!!! .


Dude, after you're done playing the schizoid dyslexic disassemblage of my now dis contextual quotes, you have felt necessary to complicate things that are not worthy of re-hashing, whether YOU think I am not or vice versa.

I will concede to your sophistry and tactically A-typical A-theist styled debate and its usual non productive conclusion.

I was never one to give in to constantly correcting those who choose to mis represent me obfuscating evolutionary biology by saying the eroding devolution of a rock is somehow a touche for darwinian logic. If I did, I would have a real hard time selling that simple to the complex argument. To this day, I have never seen water erode a rock, into a more complex boulder.

As for the rest of your tit for tat point by point quips, with all due respect to your mind blowing ideas and general tendency to nit pick someone just speaking extemporaneously about a theory, it really doesn't impress me enough to respond. I just hate the tedious line by line

They just don't give me the impression you are someone I should take seriously.

So, I won't.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to

 

There might not be a "scientific" theory of god, however there is a theory for Intelligent Design, and some may link that intelligence to either God, or perhaps Aliens or some yet unknown entity.

There is also some possible and current archaeological sites in progress that may have links to biblical places or events. Since it is extremely difficult to satisfy science on a spiritual level, perhaps a good start is finding evidence of biblical stories that can be "touched".

Personally I believe in micro evolution/adaptation etc, my struggle lies with macro evolution and abiogenesis. Creationism can co-exist with evolution on some levels and perhaps we need to look at this possibility rather than what sets them apart.

The "Theory" of Intelligent Design has no sound scientific backing.

Some of the bible does accurately tell us about some events such as battles, and of actual places. However, this does not lend to the credibility of the bible, but instead tells us the area and time period of which the stories were written. Having historically accurate data does not make the whole thing factual.

The claim that micro and macro evolution are significantly different is fallacious and has no scientific backing to suggest they are. One is over a short period of time, the other is over a long period of time. They describe the same process, one cannot exist without the other. Despite what you may believe, adaptation IS evolution. Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, but there is strong evidence to support it.

Creationism cannot co-exist with evolution. Creationism attacks science as a whole, not just evolution, and seeks to replace science rather than operate by science.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It continues to amaze me how some people are insistent upon using extremely poor analogies and obtuse, skewed logic to magically substitute a philosophical viewpoint in place of science.

[edit on 3/2/2010 by maria_stardust]

sucks to be so much more sophisticated, so much more advanced in how you see yourself so intolerant of that which must frustrate someone of your infallible logic and equally condescending but too tempting to resist, need to make such an opinion known. All without a single reason for anyone of us in either side of the argument to know exactly WHO those "some" people are.

But for someone who once called the mormons " bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals," your superior analogies and purer logic will be equally discredited by your lack of impartiality your own issues with Christians as creationists. The only difference in our inability to admit, we have no business being in a debate with such flaws. Albeit they may be different in ways we quantify in our favor, I would at least have the courage and conviction to offer more of an excuse to pop in and make such an ambiguous critique accusing without naming, giving an example or even a suggestion as to what you are talking about.


Honestly Maria, all I got out of that was that you see us commoners as beneath you. Whether you think we are or not, does it increase conflict or decrease conflict?

For me, you just closed the thread as far as I'm concerned.

Try reading this as a Member coming from a moderator.

I could be wrong but then again, so could you.

okay, we'll have to agree to disagree for now on some points...maybe im just too tired but i didn't really get the point you were trying t make with the snake example...

The snake example is ideal, It shows adaption, quite simply. That is, Evolution, driven by adaption (in this case to toads)

Also just a question, you say animals adapt or else die, does that that not mean that those first species would all die out, because it took so many years to adapt? I'm probably wrong but its interesting!

No freind, I say SPECIES adapt, not individual animals, therefore your idea is moot, since most change that occurs is also incremental.
There is no major change in one generation to another, but over many generations.
Excepting some overwhelming and drastic change (like major human interferance on localised populations of endemic species) adaption seems to cope well.
Incidentally if you read the snake link, you would find that physical adaption is not always over great periods of time, in the snake case just 70 years.
Keep in mind the amount of generations for snakes in this period.
Obvious elephants would take quite much longer to make asimilar change I would think.

Every single one of those examples is NOT evidence of the challenge that was made to you. What you have done ie merely equivocated variation in kinds which is already hard coded in the DNA and NOT the product of Darwinian macro evolution. We know we can get a sun tan in the summer but that is NOT evolution so lets get on the same page, we BOTH know what kind of change we are talking about.

I think Dave answered this well enough. You expect a clear set of fossils showing one kind of animal changing into another that looks much dffierent, This has clearly happened over many hundreds of millions of years, so its not going to happen. Yes its theory, but its better than your concept of Macro-ignorance.

Perhaps this, perhaps that, I get it you think saying comments that are predicated on pure speculation using giveaways like "perhaps" is good science to you, but wishing something perhaps changed into something else is not proof and that is why "perhapsing" it into the lungfish which is a balast mechanism, is again, nothing but pure speculation.

Where did I claim to be a scientist trying to prove something with science? Apologies for the earlier misunderstanding, But I will 'perhaps' to my hearts content thankyou.

As much as I would love to rub another colacanth living fossil in your arguments face, I doubt Ill see one of these extinct fish nevertheless.

please explain?

Having said that, (mutations) have never been seen to "develop" living things or to increase their genetic information because the information is NOT there to get it in the first place.

Hang on a second mate, If this is the case, that further 'information' cannot be (for want of better expression) 'unlocked' from DNA/Unused genes'? then how do you explain my linked snake example please?
If the snake was 'hardcoded' all along, what changed the instruction from large gap to smaller gape? Where does the introduced toad come into it?

various environmental conditions which would initiate said changes

How does enviromental conditions initiate said changes? if it dosent, what does. Adaption driving genetic change makes sense to me,
it appears to be cause and effect. The 'initiation' of it however, remains the mystery to me, and I make no claims in that regard as I said before.
Science hasnt discovered it, that Im aware of, and GOD hasnt yet taken a copyright patent either. Should science discover this self sustaining apparently 'intelligent' initiater, it still dosent rule out
and intelligent designer since GOD cannot be shown, measured, proved, only accepted. It does however make the idea of existance being pure chance, more and more blatantly arrogant.

[edit on 2-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

.............continued

The more complex and intricate, and to me, hence the more 'perfect' design of life on earth that science discoveres, the more in awe of it all I am.
Discovering the truth of something, dosent make it meaningless. Science need not be accepted as the be all and end all.
We are blessed with intelligence, and the means to expand on it in order to learn about the world around us, and its an incredible thing, so why should be offensive
to our 'creator' if one exist, that we pursue it. I would think he/she/it would be pleased in a way.
PERHAPS... science just isnt advanced enough yet to discover evidence of god. Maybe with unlocking DNA we are getting closer.
Once there was no evidence the world was round either, or that rats and their fleas caused bubonic plauge, bacteria was , unseen, unknown, and unprovable.

You don't get a sun tan first and then go lay in the sun and a chamelion doesn't look like the bark of a tree where he suddenly has an urge to find one fast so it can blend in with it.

Thats what I was saying mate.Incidentally, I dont consider myself a darwinist, or a scientist, or a creationist either, just a modern observer of the world around me.

Originally posted by CT Slayer

Originally posted by rhinoceros
There's one thing I don't understand. Most of us don't question the theory of relativity. While I have no clue about the underlying science (for example why the speed of light isn't 300 000 000 m/s instead of 299 792 458 m/s) I still believe it.

Well you see, that is the difference between you and i Rhino because their is no evidence for light traveling at that speed. I think you will find it is 186,000 miles per second and not the other two you gave. Or was that m/s a typo and you really meant kms?

This seals the deal.

1 km = 1000 m

300 000 km = 300 000 000 m

The exact speed of light (in vacuum) = 299 792 458 m/s

This is where our argument ends. I'm not going to argue with a person who clearly has no scientific background whatsoever..

Originally posted by CT Slayer
Dude, after you're done playing the schizoid dyslexic disassemblage of my now dis contextual quotes, you have felt necessary to complicate things that are not worthy of re-hashing, whether YOU think I am not or vice versa.

This is a complicated source of information to disassemble it and to sustain evolution and avoid devolution.

If it takes God A to get to God B to get to God C then finally evolve, then we don't want to destroy God A, or that would mean devolution for whatever it took for God A to get to God B and evolve.

I will concede to your sophistry and tactically A-typical A-theist styled debate and its usual non productive conclusion.

If the truth is that evolution proves god than you were unaffected by such tactics of an atheist. Those who prove god just don't want to deal with faith as an answer. They want to verify their faith is not in an atheist.

Darwinian logic.

Darwin didn't prove humans, so darwinians leave the word human undefined.

That seems like a nilhilistic source of contemporary discussion, and that is obvious to those that try to define human.

If I did, I would have a real hard time selling that simple to the complex argument. To this day, I have never seen water erode a rock, into a more complex boulder.

A superstate may seem like erosion on a substate. The rock itself is just artwork to provide a conception of the level of erosion.

As for the rest of your tit for tat point by point quips, with all due respect to your mind blowing ideas and general tendency to nit pick someone just speaking extemporaneously about a theory, it really doesn't impress me enough to respond. I just hate the tedious line by line

There is a lot of work to analyze and deflect general philosophy. There is always a need for basic 'listening skills'. In a world where even ATS declares war on trolls, there is an obvious job to mediate. The very idea of mediation is to restate a position to affirm and confirm a different viewpoint of a source, as it is like a job to listen.

"To listen" no doubt evolved from natural selection, to make lists.

They just don't give me the impression you are someone I should take seriously. So, I won't.

Focus on those who don't listen at all neither by sight nor sound. There is no time to explain the impression itself.

Impressions seem 'faster than light', yet due to laws of nature, can't show proof of this. The evolved 'brain' limits comprehension to the 'speed of light'. Impressions, when explained, may seem paranormal. This is evident by well known paralanguage and the systems for conveyance.

Originally posted by PowerSlave
There might not be a "scientific" theory of god, however there is a theory for Intelligent Design, and some may link that intelligence to either God, or perhaps Aliens or some yet unknown entity.

Evolution probably could prove there is not a "single" god, yet then it would prove evolution wrong in itself by the principle of "natural selection" would only be "survival of the fittest".

[Note to mods: OK, there are rules that govern my approach... beyond the ordinary. Let's not each be a wraith.]

There is also some possible and current archaeological sites in progress that may have links to biblical places or events. Since it is extremely difficult to satisfy science on a spiritual level, perhaps a good start is finding evidence of biblical stories that can be "touched".

The bible is tangible. Let us deny ignorance and discover the constitution of the bible.

Personally I believe in micro evolution/adaptation etc, my struggle lies with macro evolution and abiogenesis. Creationism can co-exist with evolution on some levels and perhaps we need to look at this possibility rather than what sets them apart.

The obvious that seem obvious is that people want 'brains' and there is only so much room inside the cranial space (within the limits of physics). The challenge becomes how to give people all the years of education and avoid those "mind-blown" experiences. If we simply add another 1000 years to their cranial space, that certainly will be another "brain-blown" experience. There is a nature process that takes over when those that thought they were of nature suddenly become submissive and feel powerless.

We could start a brain-blown debate over the "apple", yet even I have my guards. Don't ask for proof, they already have. If you want proof, just admit about the level of discussion we currently have while the current zeitgeist continues until a completeion of an initial phase.

reply to post by dzonatas


Evolution has nothing to do with gods.

Originally posted by davesidious
Evolution has nothing to do with gods.

They didn't understand the difference between the bug and the anti-bug.

Obviously, the bug got trapped in the amber.

The anti-bug evolved on the other side of the amber:

You cannot say that evolution has anything to do with CREATION.

reply to post by nophun


What is your definition of Creation?
Do you have one?

Donny.

Creation as defined as 'where life came from in the first place'? Agreed.
This has nothing to do with the evolution of life once it was apparent here.
There are theorys aplenty on that too, though not much to back them up (as with the theory of adaptive evoluton), excepting one instance, I tend to think might be right (though even it dosent rule out GOD), mostly because in honesty I dont much understand all the others.

see '"Primitive" extraterrestrial life'

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps the reason humans dont seem to still be physically evolving as creationist
appear to expect, is that we are no longer adapting. Rather we now adapt our enviroment
to us, as opposed to the other way around. I still accept that adaption drives genetic change
in species, otherwise known as evolution.
The two opposing sides will neither ever conceed it seems, Rather ironic when you consider
that both houses of thought are built on the same swamp of speculation and assumption.
The big bang, or God did it. Neither is more plauseable or provable than the other.
Though science atleast conceeds that once life did begin, it evolved and continues to do so, excepting perhaps for us.

Not everyone who disputes the theory of (random) evolution is a creationist. I used to believe in (random) evolution because I wasn't taught anything else. I also wasn't taught the problems that exist with the ToE. I had to find those out for myself later in life, such as;

a) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the earliest pieces of dna, which resemble viruses, managed to created a much larger single-celled organism that has a protoplasmic outer layer and hundreds of different chemical processes going on inside.

b)evolutionsts' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how millions of single-celled organisms that are very generalized (like the ameba), suddenly all decided to stick together and specialize to form the first multi-cell organism.

c) evolutionists' eyes glaze over and they mumble 'I don't know' when you ask them how the first 46 chromosome ape-like ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome children when she(or he) was surrounded by 48 chromosome ape-like creatures. When you cross a 48 chromosome horse with a 46 chromosome donkey, you get a 47 chromosome mule which is sterile. Mules cannot produce other mules. But evolutionists would have us believe that our earliest 46 chromosome ancestor managed to have 46 chromosome FERTILE children all by herself or himself.

Charles Darwin himself did NOT claim that humans evolved from apes and said the question of human development was the biggest challenge that his theory of survival of the fittest faced and for which he had NO answer.

No evolutionary biologist or geneticist in his or her right mind would publically trash their career by raising doubts over the ToE but privately, amongst themselves, more and more experts in the fields of biology and genetics are admitting that the ToE has a LOT of problems with it and they are seeing things in their research that the ToE says should NOT be there.

I am NOT a creationist and never have been. I wish I could remember the Nobel prize winning scientist who said that if the ToE were to be evaluated as a theory according to the same scientific principles as any other theory, it would fail miserably. Just because some claim that it's the only scientific theory around (which I dispute) that still does't make it right.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Beancounter72]

There are so many points I want to cover but it will probably turn into a long ramble that few will read.

Firstly, I saw a scary "fact" in my 7-yo son's "Big book of knowledge". This "fact" states that the universe all came from "a particle which was smaller than an atom". Scientists wants us to just accept THAT as fact (with zero proof) but they (some of them at least) think creationists are less than retarded because they think that everything was created. Please tell me which of those 2 sound more ridiculous? There are also many other "facts" which crept into science books; 4.6 billion years ago for instance. Not 4.5, not 4, not 5 but 4.6. How anyone can come to such a figure is just beyond me. Nobody will ever know how old the universe is and I won't even guess. It is not important.

Unfortunately they teach these things to our kids. I am not a Christian, but my ex-wife is and she is raising our son as a Christian. I just hope when he eventually becomes confused with what he learns in church and what he learns in school he'll ask his mother and not me, as I won't have an answer for him. I can't tell him that the Bible has nothing to do with "God" and evolutionists don't have it 100% right either (my belief is that natural selection is correct but maco-evolution is not). I might explain my views to him when he's a teen but I'll just confuse him more now and I might even upset him.

To come back to the topic I think there is definitely a conspiracy on to lead our kids away from religion (I am anti-religion and anti-macro-evolution so that is not completely a bad thing). If you look at science books and text books you'll see why I say that. No science book says anything about creation. They all speak of 4.6 billion years, macro-evolution as fact and other "facts" which cannot be proven.

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I can't say I disagree with you.
My problem is with the OP.
He is always yak yaking about Creation but I don't think he knows what it is.