I think there's a language barrier.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
I think there's a language barrier.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There has been nothing dishonest in my posts. The fact that English is not your first language may be causing you some problems in understanding responses. There have not been any "dishonest tricks" by me.
Once again you demonstrate complete ignorance of the topic being discussed. There are multiple hypothesis of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a complex topic and scientists often break up complex topics in order to solve them more easily. The first experiment in abiogenesis was that of Miller Urey. That particular hypothesis was confirmed. I already told you that that did not 'prove' abiogenesis. There have been many other hypotheses that have been confirmed as well as they solve problem after problem in abiogenesis. have they solved them all yet? No. That is why it is still in the realm of hypothesis. But because hypotheses have been confirmed there is scientific evidence for abiogenesis. Do you know what is totally lacking scientific evidence? The creator belief. It is not even a hypothesis. It is just a bedtime story for children.
Nope, Macroevolution has been observed in real time. But you do not understand that concept either. Why not just admit your ignorance and ask questions? When you spout nonsense people only laugh.
Sorry, referring to an ignorant poster is not "proof". That posters errors were already explained to him. He did not understand them.
Here is a suggestion. Instead of constantly demonstrating that you do not even have a high school level of scientific literacy why not ask questions? Why not try to learn?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my!! It is to laugh!
Read the article that you linked. The concept started long before Darwin and he was never part of it. Do you know who started it? It was started by creationists. People that believe the creation myth of the Bible and perhaps the Koran too.
cladking
Well-Known Member
\
And I never said modern biologists are as confused as Darwin. Given enough time they might even get it right. For all I know they are already right.
But the reality remains that many anomalies still exist with current theory and there is still ample reason to believe that neither "species" nor "consciousness" can be reduced to experiment AT THIS TIME. For this reason grave doubt exists that Evolution is correct.
History shows every scientist has been wrong in the past and still each of them and their supporters knew everything at the time. They are still wrong and they do not know "everything" or there would exist no anomalies.
Besides this being a thread about Darwin there is still the fact that scientists still velieve in "survival of the fittest", "species", and that consciousness is irrelevant and even non-existent in "lesser species".
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What I find interesting is that many scientists spend so much time considering the universe and evolution yet the world has been in and is going to a disastrous situation. So no matter how hard they try or have tried, the world is getting worse, environmentally and otherwise. (Wars, random murders, cruelty, abuse, etc.)
Jesus said regarding the end, (and there's no turning back) at Matthew 24--
"for then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again 22 In fact, unless those days were cut short, no flesh would be saved; but on account of the chosen ones those days will be cut short."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is because after 2,000 years of constant predictions that the world is coming to an end rational people do not pay those claims much attention and instead do the right thing instead. They try to make the world a better place to live in.
Does mathematics think? I do not understand or recognize the relevance of such a question.
I do not recall anyone claiming that natural selection was a conscious, thinking process. Perhaps one position, but that position is irrational and not based on knowledge, skill, evidence or reason and can be ignored.
Is the water cycle thinking? Is the deposition of silt at the bottom of a lake thinking? Is there evidence that processes following the laws of nature are thought processes? Is there evidence of any thinking in those systems?
No reasonable person is claiming that natural selection is a thinking process, so I do not understand the point of your post.
I'm glad I am not the only one that found that post difficult and incoherent.
There was no clear idea what you were asking or trying to say. Is someone claiming that some existing species of octopus is ancestral to some other extant species? Can you post links to show us? I have never heard of this.
The change in living things over time is a fact. The theory is not a fact, it is a falsifiable explanation for the observed change.
Be careful of the ideas you hitch your wagon to. Some of them are irrational and not based on knowledge or evidence.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
I discovered a problem with statistical models such as used by biology for evolution.
In chemistry, entropy is considered a state variable. What this means is for any given state of matter, there is a fixed amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure, is 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is always the same. It is a constant.
If we look at water, at the quantum level, the molecules of water, the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, the protons, electrons and neutrons, and the all the sub particles, are all modeled with statistical assumptions and images of randomness and uncertainty. The paradox that appears is although we model the details of water with statistical assumptions, and even equate entropy with this complexity, the sum of all this complex randomness always equals a constant entropy.
How is it possible for so many statistical layers of things, happening in the water, all acting randomly, nevertheless, always add to a constant? It would be like 1 million people, throwing dice, with the sum of all the dice always equalling a constant, day after day? It seems impossible that random is in the lead by its own assumptions. Random is not the cause, but an affect that can redistribute constant entropy.
It appears that constant entropy leads random. The analogy is having a closed insulated box that has particles of matter and energy, all in random motion. The parts can change orientation over time, but the sum of the free energy is always the same due to the containment. In the case of the water there is no physical barrier, but there is still a type of entropic containment.
Randomness is not what it appears to be, since it cannot explain randomness leading to a constant. Evolution that uses statistics may be artificial. It looks inside a box of fixed entropy and see things jumping around. But does not grasp this is an affect and not a cause. There is a type of constant entropic containment, without apparent physical boundaries, that determines the outcome, since all has to add to a constant entropy.
In chemistry, entropy is considered a state variable. What this means is for any given state of matter, there is a fixed amount of entropy. For example, the entropy of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere of pressure, is 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is always the same. It is a constant.
If we look at water, at the quantum level, the molecules of water, the atoms of hydrogen and oxygen, the protons, electrons and neutrons, and the all the sub particles, are all modeled with statistical assumptions and images of randomness and uncertainty. The paradox that appears is although we model the details of water with statistical assumptions, and even equate entropy with this complexity, the sum of all this complex randomness always equals a constant entropy.
How is it possible for so many statistical layers of things, happening in the water, all acting randomly, nevertheless, always add to a constant? It would be like 1 million people, throwing dice, with the sum of all the dice always equalling a constant, day after day? It seems impossible that random is in the lead by its own assumptions. Random is not the cause, but an affect that can redistribute constant entropy.
It appears that constant entropy leads random. The analogy is having a closed insulated box that has particles of matter and energy, all in random motion. The parts can change orientation over time, but the sum of the free energy is always the same due to the containment. In the case of the water there is no physical barrier, but there is still a type of entropic containment.
Randomness is not what it appears to be, since it cannot explain randomness leading to a constant. Evolution that uses statistics may be artificial. It looks inside a box of fixed entropy and see things jumping around. But does not grasp this is an affect and not a cause. There is a type of constant entropic containment, without apparent physical boundaries, that determines the outcome, since all has to add to a constant entropy.
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well then the term 'natural selection' should not be used. What or who "selected" what comes next?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What I have realized over the time is that there are some things in the Bible I cannot explain except to say that it happened by God's ability. Over what we consider as normal or natural. While I understand (yes, I do, in terms of figuring that it must have happened that way as scientists figure) the theory, not all the terms and phrases and ins and outs of it) the basic idea of the theory, I no longer accept or believe it BECAUSE yes! there is no proof AND NO EVIDENCE of the beginnings of the process, and by that I'm not talking about abiogenesis but of the simply putting together of cells and/or atoms. And because despite fossil remains, again -- while they may show extinct organisms, again -- there is no proof whatsoever that these organisms came to be because of evolution. So that's where I leave it now.
I don't agree. It is an honest description of a natural process and does not imply the actions of any intelligent agency since there is no evidence to warrant that.
The course of a river is naturally selected by the physical factors governing the process (the environment). The density and hardness of the strata through which the water flows. The volume, the gradient and the force of the water are all natural phenomena that dictate the direction the river takes.
Natural selection references those features of the environment, both internal and external and living and non-living, that act to impose or remove limitations on the direction a population takes in its evolution. What comes next will depend on the genes and phenotypes of a population and environmental properties under which it exists.
There is evidence, but there will never be proof.
I realize that you reject it, but there is more to it for you or you would not remain here. You want others to reject it for ideological reasons as well. I cannot reject it on the basis of man's word and I cannot reject God's Work or our logical, reasonable attempts to understand it.
There is much evidence and many examples have been provided on this thread as well as many other threads. It is true that a person with supporting evidence cannot make those that disagree see it objectively for what it is, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence. Rejecting evidence does not equal no evidence.
The process of evolution begins with the living things with genetic variation and the ability to propagate that variation. Not knowing how life originated does not place a stop on the theory of how life is related or diversified. We make countless decisions each day about things for which we do not know the origin and those decisions are often sound just the same.
cladking
Well-Known Member
The primary problem today is that never have believers in anything been so holier than thou. Even the inquisitors recognized the simple fact that they didn't always know God's will. They knew that their beliefs were derived from interpretations of gospel and from limited human understanding. But believers in science have no such limitations; they simply can't be wrong. Almost all of today's nonsense follows from absolutely no morals and no moral compunctions at all and the deep seated beliefs in the laws of nature as applied to even things we can't understand like human consciousness or the differences to all other consciousness. We allow the few to destroy products and companies while ruining stakeholders, widows, and orphans because someone can make another billion dollars from the dissolution of the commonweal. Rather than streamlining the economy so everyone can be wealthy and there is far less CO2 production we pass laws to make things even worse so some can garner massive profit.
Then almost everyone with a couple of brain cells is trained as a specialist. We have specialists who study the mites on the back legs of bark beetles which inhabit oak trees but almost nobody can see the forest or even the tree occupied by the bark beetle. Companies operate with each department working at odds with other departments and nobody can see the problem. Management fights labor and the financiers can see only money and profit. The economy hums along at about a 5% efficiency and hundreds of millions go hungry. Then somehow nobody can see the deplorable conditions all over the world because of the nonsensical fixation on race, religion, and sex in this country. Our government supports only the rich, the criminal class, and those who won't work. Young people are sacrificed at the altar of older people whether it's the ability to get a job or the need to ruin a generation to protect the sick and aged from disease. Schools have failed so now there is little hope of creating citizens or walking back some of our largest problems.
But I still believe it can be done. It will require people to understand how little is really known and it will require them to vote for anyone but the government who established this mess. The American people still have a great deal in common but we don't hold leaders responsible. We need to demand quality in all things. We need to fixate not on our differences because our differences are a strength not a weakness. We need to start paying more attention to what we have in common like the desire to see the young prosper and everyone given choices rather than having them made by a bureaucrat or congressman.
People need to quit listening to those who say it can't be done or that superstition and blind obedience is strength. Pyramids weren't built by dimwits for their betters. Society never functioned this way until now. We are told we are inferior or live in fly over country. We are told that we all have an equal chance and only the fit survive but the reality is life is a crap shoot. It takes more than persistence, hard work, and competence, it also takes a lot of luck and it takes luck that the terms are applied the same to all. We've been bamboozled by those who know everything and want everyone to believe they know everything because they even control scientific findings.
What I have learned from this thread so far.
1. Darwin is an historical figure in science that creationists like to attack as if what he did not know is somehow relevant to the stability of modern science.
Charles Darwin made numerous observations regarding the evolution of life and is noteworthy for formulating the theoretical mechanism of natural selection. He did not know nor need to know the origin of life. He did not know and was unaware of the particulate means of inheritance. He did not have the greater knowledge of the fossil record that is available today yet got many things correct. His theories were constructed on sound observations. His opinions and predictions about what he discovered are his opinions and reflect his culture more often than they reflect a valid interpretation of the science.
2. Scientific theories are not intrinsically evil.
No evidence that the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory is a source of evil or the basis of evil has been presented. In fact, all the evidence that has been presented is the actions of people that have used and twisted science (and religion and everything else) to support the evil that has arisen independently in themselves. Using knowledge to perpetuate evil does not make that knowledge evil by default.
3. There is no conspiracy of Peers that dictate reality.
This notion seems to stem from an ignorance of science, peers in science and the peer review process. However, it may reflect an unspoken realization by some that their unsupported claims they hold dear as revealed truth would not make it through peer review for lack of evidence, sound theoretical basis and a failure to fit the scientific method. What someone believes, but cannot or refuses to support objectively is not science.
4. Creationist attempts to attack science have not changed.
The same old tactics of empty claims, logical fallacies and demeaning commentary are employed now as they have been from the start of this controversy. In fact, the controversy is not within science and, so far, all attempts to bring it into science or make it seem to exist in science have failed.
The only variation seems to be in how these tactics are employed and which tactics are favored over others, but that often dead arguments are resurrected and treated as if they have never before been seen is still alive and well within the creationist playbook.
The prevalent and relative idea that attacking outdated views of science is still a favorite means to attempt to discredit scientific views and still exists on the concepts of "God of the gaps" and "my personal view is the default position".
Controversies in science are not the collapse of science. Falsification in science does not mean that a particular religious view becomes science or becomes the truth by default.
Included with this are a number of lesser things I have learned.
1. Directed mutations have not been demonstrated.
All the indication that mutation is not a random process has been in hyperbolic rhetoric and not any evidence. Even if it were determined and demonstrated that mutation can be directed, natural mechanisms would need to be discovered and shown. It would not be evidence of the actions of a designer or that a particular person's favorite religious view is established as the cause or becomes science by default.
2. Nothing has been demonstrated that indicates that all living things possess consciousness or that change in living processes is directed by consciousness.
This claim is prevalent, but remains unsupported and in defiance of evidence that eliminates it as a rational conclusion. Microbes, for instance, do not show any indication of possessing a consciousness nor any mechanism for consciousness. Much the same can be said of zooplankton and plants. That humans possess consciousness is not evidence that all living things possess consciousness. The entire idea seems to be more the expression of a personal religious belief and not one based on reason or evidence at all.
3. Controversy in science does not portend the failure of scientific theories. Neither does the general or selected rejection of science based on ideology lead us there either.
By its very nature science promotes skepticism and controversy in the search to know. Proof is not a standard of science where existing knowledge, reason, evidence, observation, experiment and study are the key criteria on which scientific conclusions are based always with the knowledge that some new piece of information may turn that all around.
That a person may believe something is not evidence to base the rejection or falsification of scientific explanations or conclusions on. People believe many things in religion and beyond that they cannot demonstrate as fact and that cannot be used to topple conclusions based on fact. That I believe in God and follow the Word of God does not mean that I can show that the Work of God or what we learn about it is false. I cannot demonstrate objectively that there is a God. No one has and I do not know that anyone can. What is claimed, explained and concluded in science is based on what can be demonstrated by evidence, reason and logic.
4. Changes in living things are not all sudden. This is pretty well established by the facts and one hardly can understand why anyone would believe otherwise. It seems to represent ignorance of the world around us or denial of it. Who can say?
There is much more, but this enough.
1. Darwin is an historical figure in science that creationists like to attack as if what he did not know is somehow relevant to the stability of modern science.
Charles Darwin made numerous observations regarding the evolution of life and is noteworthy for formulating the theoretical mechanism of natural selection. He did not know nor need to know the origin of life. He did not know and was unaware of the particulate means of inheritance. He did not have the greater knowledge of the fossil record that is available today yet got many things correct. His theories were constructed on sound observations. His opinions and predictions about what he discovered are his opinions and reflect his culture more often than they reflect a valid interpretation of the science.
2. Scientific theories are not intrinsically evil.
No evidence that the theory of evolution or any other scientific theory is a source of evil or the basis of evil has been presented. In fact, all the evidence that has been presented is the actions of people that have used and twisted science (and religion and everything else) to support the evil that has arisen independently in themselves. Using knowledge to perpetuate evil does not make that knowledge evil by default.
3. There is no conspiracy of Peers that dictate reality.
This notion seems to stem from an ignorance of science, peers in science and the peer review process. However, it may reflect an unspoken realization by some that their unsupported claims they hold dear as revealed truth would not make it through peer review for lack of evidence, sound theoretical basis and a failure to fit the scientific method. What someone believes, but cannot or refuses to support objectively is not science.
4. Creationist attempts to attack science have not changed.
The same old tactics of empty claims, logical fallacies and demeaning commentary are employed now as they have been from the start of this controversy. In fact, the controversy is not within science and, so far, all attempts to bring it into science or make it seem to exist in science have failed.
The only variation seems to be in how these tactics are employed and which tactics are favored over others, but that often dead arguments are resurrected and treated as if they have never before been seen is still alive and well within the creationist playbook.
The prevalent and relative idea that attacking outdated views of science is still a favorite means to attempt to discredit scientific views and still exists on the concepts of "God of the gaps" and "my personal view is the default position".
Controversies in science are not the collapse of science. Falsification in science does not mean that a particular religious view becomes science or becomes the truth by default.
Included with this are a number of lesser things I have learned.
1. Directed mutations have not been demonstrated.
All the indication that mutation is not a random process has been in hyperbolic rhetoric and not any evidence. Even if it were determined and demonstrated that mutation can be directed, natural mechanisms would need to be discovered and shown. It would not be evidence of the actions of a designer or that a particular person's favorite religious view is established as the cause or becomes science by default.
2. Nothing has been demonstrated that indicates that all living things possess consciousness or that change in living processes is directed by consciousness.
This claim is prevalent, but remains unsupported and in defiance of evidence that eliminates it as a rational conclusion. Microbes, for instance, do not show any indication of possessing a consciousness nor any mechanism for consciousness. Much the same can be said of zooplankton and plants. That humans possess consciousness is not evidence that all living things possess consciousness. The entire idea seems to be more the expression of a personal religious belief and not one based on reason or evidence at all.
3. Controversy in science does not portend the failure of scientific theories. Neither does the general or selected rejection of science based on ideology lead us there either.
By its very nature science promotes skepticism and controversy in the search to know. Proof is not a standard of science where existing knowledge, reason, evidence, observation, experiment and study are the key criteria on which scientific conclusions are based always with the knowledge that some new piece of information may turn that all around.
That a person may believe something is not evidence to base the rejection or falsification of scientific explanations or conclusions on. People believe many things in religion and beyond that they cannot demonstrate as fact and that cannot be used to topple conclusions based on fact. That I believe in God and follow the Word of God does not mean that I can show that the Work of God or what we learn about it is false. I cannot demonstrate objectively that there is a God. No one has and I do not know that anyone can. What is claimed, explained and concluded in science is based on what can be demonstrated by evidence, reason and logic.
4. Changes in living things are not all sudden. This is pretty well established by the facts and one hardly can understand why anyone would believe otherwise. It seems to represent ignorance of the world around us or denial of it. Who can say?
There is much more, but this enough.
Last edited:
I feel slightly bad about posting that. I now suspect there's some kind of language barrier, if English isn't his first language and I'm an Aussie who abuses English then communication is going to be difficult.
I don't know that there is a language issue. I think @YoursTrue is born citizen of the US. She can correct me if I am wrong. I think the issue is more of understanding of what the theory explains.