The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

The more we learn about life, the more we discover an underlying degree of order at the molecular level. This is exactly what one would expect to find if life were the product of design, and the exact opposite of what the "blind watchmaker" brand of evolution has predicted.

The thought that any high degree of chance played a role in life's development is an argument from ignorance, 19th century ignorance to be precise; "I don't understand it, therefor chancedidit." - classic gap science.

Thankfully this idea is going the way of astrology as science has discovered and will continue to discover that the cell is nanotechnology operating under various laws, principles, and mechanisms. In other words, the cell is an algorithm:

algorithm (āl'gə-rĭ'əm) -- A finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal, especially a mathematical rule or procedure used to compute a desired result. Algorithms are the basis for most computer programming.

As we continue to discover the details of the algorithim we will continue to see that chance played no more a role in life's development than it did in Windows booting up when I flicked the power button on my PC. Both examples are hardware adhering to software, nothing more.

The most blatantly obvious example of this is in the growth of individual organisms. For example, human beings:

Cell -> Fetus -> Infant -> Baby -> Toddler -> Child -> Teen -> Adult

All of this growth is internal, the result of the instructions (algorithm) produced in the early stages of our development.

This is not only the most beautiful, eloquent process ever developed, it's mind-blowing engineering the likes of which we've never known.

The sooner we accept that biology is full of this type of incredibly intelligent sophistication (going back billions of years) and isn't the cobbled together mess Darwin's 1850's plea to ignorance (and other "chancedidit" hypothesis) requires it be, the sooner biology can progress to never before reached heights.

Intelligent Design is the future of biology. Get use to it, kiddos.

P.S. -- is there any way to change the theme/layout for this forum? It's very unorganized and the color scheme is extremely unattractive. T.I.A.

For the record, I wouldn't classify what we're seeing in biology as a "conspiracy". What it is, is the typical beginnings of a scientific revolution. Anyone who's read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions will understand this.

We have people who are unreasonably committed to "blind watchmaker" evolution, regardless of what the evidence says. What makes this paradigm shift so ugly is that it goes well beyond the typical motivators (money and pride) and delves into worldviews, which then goes even deeper, into politics. Simply put, all of our leftist, secular scientists need blind watchmaker evolution. They need it to support their Godless ideas and beliefs; their Godfree lifestyles. In this regard, they're no different than the Christian fundamentalist who refuses to give up Biblical creationism.

They and their claims should be treated with the same level of skepticism.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Mista Kool]

My problem with evolution is that when the question is asked how did life begin, evolutionists completely dismiss it because they do not know. So then they usually go on to say that evolution is the study of life not how it begin. lol. Okay let me rephrase the question.

How did nothing evolve into life? And please post lab proof where it has been recreated. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is none.

Originally posted by nophun
It is not random chance or accidental. If is was blind chance we would see negative changes being passed onto the next generation and this does not happen

There are blind people all around us, so if we consider what the chance is of their ability to affect something around us, then it is not a random chance.

To prejudge the effect as positive or negative is not survival of the fittest and is not creationism, so to speak.

That would be Intelligence and questionably Artificial Intelligence.

Originally posted by Mista Kool
The more we learn about life, the more we discover an underlying degree of order at the molecular level. This is exactly what one would expect to find if life were the product of design, and the exact opposite of what the "blind watchmaker" brand of evolution has predicted.

You do understand that "blind watchmaker" means "natural selection", right? Okay, now that that's out of the way. What do you mean when you talk about degree of order at the molecular level? Are you talking about gene expression and protein synthesis? How does it go against natural selection? Natural selection means "if it's working better than other possibilities then it becomes more common". You know there probably aren't any processes going on in the cell (at the molecular level) that work at highest possible efficiency because the "design" is not perfect. If there was a designer then how come the design is flawed? As your argument stands, it's just nonsense..

The thought that any high degree of chance played a role in life's development is an argument from ignorance, 19th century ignorance to be precise; "I don't understand it, therefor chancedidit." - classic gap science.

You're the one being ignorant. Chance has a huge role in the life history of our planet. For example there would not be humans if a certain piece of rock didn't hit Earth some 65 million years ago. Or are you telling me that it was God that wiped out majority of Earth's fauna at the time just so humans could arise over 60 million years later?

Thankfully this idea is going the way of astrology as science has discovered and will continue to discover that the cell is nanotechnology operating under various laws, principles, and mechanisms. In other words, the cell is an algorithm:

algorithm (āl'gə-rĭ'əm) -- A finite set of unambiguous instructions performed in a prescribed sequence to achieve a goal, especially a mathematical rule or procedure used to compute a desired result. Algorithms are the basis for most computer programming.

As we continue to discover the details of the algorithim we will continue to see that chance played no more a role in life's development than it did in Windows booting up when I flicked the power button on my PC. Both examples are hardware adhering to software, nothing more.

Everything follows the laws of the Universe. If you want to call that God, by all means do so. I still call them the laws of the Universe.

Originally posted by Conclusion
How did nothing evolve into life?

What do you mean nothing? We know for a fact that you don't need anything living to get amino acids and that amino acids form peptides spontaneously. How long is the road from that to self-replicating molecules (aka life)? I don't know..

This is one possible way it could have happened. It's more of an answer to how life began than any religion will ever have.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by rhinoceros


Whoa take a looK at your response please.

This is the problem. You have an understanding of science. The other guy clearly doesn't but has taken a strong stance against it.

Look at it this way. I know nothing about car engines. You do . How on earth can I argue with you about how to fix a car when I have no sensible basis for comment apart from my gut?

T

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Tiger5]

Originally posted by maria_stardust
The problem is with the way you are attempting to present your case in a way that is simply not plausible.

There is an apparent confusion between schematics and semantics. Some will try to say they mean the same thing and some will try to respect the differences. That plausibility you worry about is not practical; it doesn't apply.

That alone is an impossibility.

Impossibilities require proof that they are impossible. Only through logic existentialism are impossibilities proven. To merely say impossibilities cannot be presented in a logical or illogical manner is impossible. This the basic application of how circuits and analog devices work.

Why venture down an avenue that can't be tested, much less proven, to be true?

You have presented anecdotal evidence that yet remains to be corroborated as evidence that can be used as facts (and proof). Whatever avenue you have chosen to venture down to somehow state here your evidence, let us venture the opposite direction in order to create that difference needed to prove what is impossible. These means are already proven by Charles Babbage (and the invention of the Differential Engines).

Nice try,

Size matters except when we put the matter on the scales. You don't know if the scales matter to weigh the size. Please, if you haven't already, review the concept of analog devices.

we are most certainly discussing it in a civilized manner.

Common ground is nice to appreciate. It would be impossible to imagine if we lost it except for the impossible dreamers. It does hurt when people try to test abstractions from impossible dreams as true or false. It's virtual. Let it be.

Comparing Heaven to energy is hardly scientific by any stretch of the imagination. It may be your viewpoint, but there is no science involved.

It's an analog device. The only scientific question there is to worry about is if it matters.

The Bible is a book.

Corroborated evidence that it matters.

Books can be made of organic matter.

Simple stated as "truth" yet not the whole truth and complete truth.

Organic matter is comprised of DNA.

More corroborated evidence.

DNA is analogous to programming code.

More corroborated evidence about "truth" in the "passages" (or as you say "avenues") in the bible. In DNA, terms, we could analogously compare avenues to "ribbons"... or merely a "rib". Maybe wonder if we actually read from the second passage in the bible and what happens next. A machine only worries about what is next.

That still doesn't prove that Creationism or Intelligent Design are anything less than faith-based beliefs (philosophy).

Because you statement is undeniable truth. It is an "inconvenient truth" is essence. If it was a matter of semantics, it would be the same thing. This is a matter of schematics, which is the "same difference."

Belief is solid truth, the whole truth, and the complete truth, and nothing but the truth. Theory is not belief. It is the diametrically opposed position of belief. It is deniable. Everything in between belief and theory is faith. Blind faith has nothing to do with neither faith nor belief. Of course, being legally blind is a different matter.

You are more than welcome to believe anything you want. But personal beliefs not rooted in verifiable fact will not disprove the Theory of Evolution. Therein lays the Creationism conspiracy.

I am nothing, but alive. There isn't anything I can prove to you based on your belief. This is beyond undeniable.

To merely muse about in undeniable truth is a conspiracy. The question is, is it a conspiracy fact or conspiracy theory. One of the two. It can't be both.

You know there probably aren't any processes going on in the cell (at the molecular level) that work at highest possible efficiency because the "design" is not perfect. If there was a designer then how come the design is flawed? As your argument stands, it's just nonsense..

Whoa! Thats arrogant! who says the design is flawed? its worked for billions of years. can you come up with a better bio design?

Chance has a huge role in the life history of our planet. For example there would not be humans if a certain piece of rock didn't hit Earth some 65 million years ago.

more arrogance. who says so? What makes us human more than our homonid ancesters? The transition happened much later than the K-T event. So mammals arose, thats not to say they wouldnt have anyway.

the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period
251 to 199 Ma (million years ago). Modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period.
en.wikipedia.org...

Everything follows the laws of the Universe. If you want to call that God, by all means do so. I still call them the laws of the Universe.

And he/she never called them 'God' so what is your problem? Why can 'The laws of the universe' not be intelligent design anyway?
'laws' implies a legislater, aka, God? Your argument is flawed too mate!
what makes universal law so?

My problem with evolution is that when the question is asked how did life begin, evolutionists completely dismiss it because they do not know. So then they usually go on to say that evolution is the study of life not how it begin. lol. Okay let me rephrase the question.

How did nothing evolve into life? And please post lab proof where it has been recreated. Oh yeah, I forgot, there is none.

There is no evidence of God either, what makes God more beleivable?

[edit on 28-2-2010 by wayaboveitall]

My suggestion is that you try to feel ok about yourself. Your ok. You can believe in Evolution all you want. Try to be at peace with yourself. Other people can believe in Devolution or what you call creationism and it's all right. You'll be fine. Don't panic. You can write all the "proofs" you want. You can be happy. Be happy! Be Happy! It's all right, be happy! Your a good person. Your not evil, your not stupid, your not bad. It's ok. Be happy! Say to yourself "I'm a scientist and I'm not crazy. I have credentials and I'm loved and appreciated.". It's fine that you believe in Evolution. There are lots of people like you. You aren't alone. Your not the only one. It's OK. Be happy!

Originally posted by dzonatas
Belief is solid truth, the whole truth, and the complete truth, and nothing but the truth. Theory is not belief. It is the diametrically opposed position of belief. It is deniable. Everything in between belief and theory is faith. Blind faith has nothing to do with neither faith nor belief. Of course, being legally blind is a different matter.

What's with all the tap-dancing?

Belief is not a truth. It is a viewpoint. It is a personal perspective. It is non-tangible because it exists only in one's mind and varies from individual to individual.

To merely muse about in undeniable truth is a conspiracy. The question is, is it a conspiracy fact or conspiracy theory. One of the two. It can't be both.

Please explain what the "undeniable truth" is that you're referring to regarding this particular conspiracy. Because if the "undeniable truth" is double-speak for "belief is a solid truth" then you are sadly mistaken.

By your contention then my personal beliefs on this matter would be considered a "solid truth" or rather an "undeniable truth." By the same token your personal beliefs would be considered exactly the same way.

Do you honestly consider your "solid truth" to be more "undeniable" than my "solid truth"?

It's one of the two. It can't be both.

[edit on 2/28/2010 by maria_stardust]

Originally posted by nophun
It seems very predictable and understood to me.

Natural selection needs to be proven random.

Of course, the force of nature is not considered random.

We still have to consider the act of nature and act of god differences.

Natural selection needs to be proven random.

Why?

Originally posted by ReelView
My suggestion is that you try to feel ok about yourself. Your ok. You can believe in Evolution all you want. Try to be at peace with yourself. Other people can believe in Devolution or what you call creationism and it's all right. You'll be fine. Don't panic. You can write all the "proofs" you want. You can be happy. Be happy! Be Happy! It's all right, be happy! Your a good person. Your not evil, your not stupid, your not bad. It's ok. Be happy! Say to yourself "I'm a scientist and I'm not crazy. I have credentials and I'm loved and appreciated.". It's fine that you believe in Evolution. There are lots of people like you. You aren't alone. Your not the only one. It's OK. Be happy!

Did you just drink a few red bull's?

Originally posted by Mista Kool
Intelligent Design is the future of biology.

Intelligent Design is ideal, yet to push the notion beyond the ideal would mean it a self-defeat. That should be self-evident.

What makes Intelligent Designed suffer is that it still hasn't been allowed to pass the hypothesis stage of any scientific theory. It is not theory.

There are obviously other proofs needed before Creationism and Theory of Evolution both evolve into a unified Intelligent Design ideal theory. They difference being to recognize that the nature of evolution is not the same as the Theory of Evolution even if the Theory of Evolution tries to explain it as the same thing.

A square is rectangle. There are natural directions of force.

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun

 

I understand that the natural selection process is not random, but is IS blind, It doesn't make a choice its just a term used to describe the survival of the fittest mechanism..

maybe i was not clear enough, but i know that natural selection is not random and that the mutations are.

lol Well at the start you said "HOW DOES apparent randomness(which is just a term describing the unpredictable or misunderstood!)".


when i refereed to apparent randomness i was talking about mutations!!
I know how evolution works and also that, yes, natural selection can be and mostly is predictable, but not always, as i stated earlier, surely luck would play a part also?

Im just not wholly convinced as of yet that random mutations have produced the adaption we witness in the natural world,,(opinion subject to change of course!)

I wont argue anymore

All I am saying it Natural selection not random, unpredictable, or misunderstood

It seems very predictable and understood to me.

Originally posted by Mista Kool
Simply put, all of our leftist, secular scientists need blind watchmaker evolution.

Some in this thread think that a 'blind watchmaker' is completely random, impossible, unpredictable, or can't be explain. This is not hard.

What matters to the blind is different then what matters to the dead. Anybody can argue endlessly and exponentially if the matter is the same thing or same difference.

However, those that are truly legally blind prefer to speak in perfect tense. This means their words are the "time clock" or at least the sense of an ordinary time line at a quantum level. For the deaf, their sense of an ordinary time line is easily the motion of the hands.

Put them together and you can argue creationism isn't science and science isn't creationism all day while they bank on it.

reply to post by nophun

And your God is not real ?

I'll call it even to avoid being petty.

I do want to speak to your declarative question though. If I may?

Are you making the suggestion I don't have the right God? Or that God does not exist?
It comes down to this." Someone "" Something " is in control of we
who do not know anything of where we have been, or where we come from, or even know where we are going.
Or we would be the ones who don't exist.
The above is true beyond any arguement.

To suggest God does not exist, is not only a claim you do not posess the
capacity to make with any honesty.
You also suggest life takes hold without being nurtured. The same as any
experiment we performe in a lab. The same as a newborn of any species is nurtured, especially our own. The plants of a garden do much better
with nurturing.
To suggest that life happens without being nurtured is the single stupidest dumbest
fn thing I ever heard in my own existence. It's completely ludicrous
and against all the evidence the open eye perceives........

There are many evidences for evolution that can not be argued.
It's even encoded in our DNA. Or was that adaptation?

My suggestion is that you try to feel ok about yourself. Your ok. You can believe in Evolution all you want. Try to be at peace with yourself. Other people can believe in Devolution or what you call creationism and it's all right. You'll be fine. Don't panic. You can write all the "proofs" you want. You can be happy. Be happy! Be Happy! It's all right, be happy! Your a good person. Your not evil, your not stupid, your not bad. It's ok. Be happy! Say to yourself "I'm a scientist and I'm not crazy. I have credentials and I'm loved and appreciated.". It's fine that you believe in Evolution. There are lots of people like you. You aren't alone. Your not the only one. It's OK. Be happy

I think this is beyond any amount of Red Bull and may even involve an
I.V. drip.



[edit on 28-2-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by wayaboveitall

Natural selection needs to be proven random.

Why?

At least try to answer, please. Need sustenance.

If it is not proven random then it is not natural. That does not mean random events are not apart of nature as the mere act of nature may be the use of randomness.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
What's with all the tap-dancing?

Your response only defeats the purpose to have a discussion. Please, no need for such comments in order to be professional.

Belief is not a truth.

Belief is an act of affirmation. The truth just exists or not.

It is a viewpoint.

Viewpoints are architecture. You have only corroborated proof that the accusation of philosophy is not true, and this is proven by the well studied problem known as the blind men and the elephant.

Viewpoints are described. When someone comes along and says you can't compare viewpoints because it would be philosophy, then they are proven wrong by such elephant. This is architecture.

It is a personal perspective.

Each of the blind men describe the elephant differently.

It is non-tangible because it exists only in one's mind and varies from individual to individual.

No because each blind man can touch the elephant and know the truth it is there.

Please explain what the "undeniable truth" is that you're referring to regarding this particular conspiracy.

Any undeniable truth is the same consequence no matter the situation or given affected parts of any whole. It solely pivots on one (or more) people that simply denies the possibility of truth another knows or doesn't know as truth.

My other thread goes into the subject matter: Conscience conspiracy against metaphysics

Your first statement "What's with all the tap-dancing?" gives away an obvious 'sense of direction' towards something implied I really have no clue about. Ask yourself how does 'tap-dancing' have anything to do with this. (Maybe that is your 'philosophy'.)

Do you honestly consider your "solid truth" to be more "undeniable" than my "solid truth"?

It's one of the two. It can't be both.

That isn't the question of both or neither of those. It is about if the conspiracy is either theory or fact.

If science proves the bible by evolution, then those of creationism should be happy that there is sudden agreement. They may tap-dance out of sheer end of war between evolutionist and creationist.

The question remains about why are there still those that want devolution -- to fight against science's ability to prove the bible by evolution.