Evolution is illogical and non sense

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So, to make your argument work, you redefine subjectivity?

Subjectivity is someone's judgment as shaped by personal beliefs, tastes, opinions and feelings. If you don't like that definition, so be it; it is the definition everyone else is using.

Objectivity is exactly opposite.

Pan Am Flight 800, for instance. When that plane blew up, immediately those who held the personal belief and opinion immediately saw a government operation. They had no evidence for this of course; this conclusion was based soley on their belief that the government is constantly orchestrating false flag events and murdering its own citizens. Here, subjectivity is not valid.

Objective persons, however, look at the incident and say, "Hmm. I wonder what happened and what caused the crash". Maybe it was a terrorist plot; maybe it was a government operation; maybe it was pilot error; maybe it was an accidental shooting by the nearby Coast Guard ships; maybe it was mechanical failure. The objective persons puts all the "maybes" aside and follows the trail of evidence that will lead to the conclusion.

Subjectivity is purely bias. This definition of subjectivity was use before Darwin's theory; so this definition of subjectivity has nothing to do with "evolutionists".

Here is a list of things Creationists do not understand:

truth
fact
objectivity
opinion
subjectivity
Science
Evidence
Investigative Process
Theory

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

What I don't understand is if it takes many years to evolve, how come creatures older than humans like some reptiles, bugs, ect, didn't become just as evolved, if not, more so than us?

There is no rule that says a species becomes "more" evolved or has to become "more" evolved. Sharks, cockroaches and crocadiles/alligators have changed little (evolved, if you will) for many millennia. They have not changed much simply because their current state contains the survival advantages required for their current environments. Their environments have changed little over the millennia. As they are fit for their environment as is, it is unlikely that further changes would not serve to increase their chances of survivability; and further changes may actually serve to decrease their chances of survivability. As a result, changes or "evolving" could lead to their extinction. The idea of a "hierarchy" of "more evolved"/"Less evolved" is purely subjective, based on a bias such as "mammals are a higher order than insects, and primates are a higher order than canines".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, to make your argument work, you redefine subjectivity?

Subjectivity is someone's judgment as shaped by personal beliefs, tastes, opinions and feelings. If you don't like that definition, so be it; it is the definition everyone else is using.

Objectivity is exactly opposite.

Pan Am Flight 800, for instance. When that plane blew up, immediately those who held the personal belief and opinion immediately saw a government operation. They had no evidence for this of course; this conclusion was based soley on their belief that the government is constantly orchestrating false flag events and murdering its own citizens. Here, subjectivity is not valid.

Objective persons, however, look at the incident and say, "Hmm. I wonder what happened and what caused the crash". Maybe it was a terrorist plot; maybe it was a government operation; maybe it was pilot error; maybe it was an accidental shooting by the nearby Coast Guard ships; maybe it was mechanical failure. The objective persons puts all the "maybes" aside and follows the trail of evidence that will lead to the conclusion.

Subjectivity is purely bias. This definition of subjectivity was use before Darwin's theory; so this definition of subjectivity has nothing to do with "evolutionists".

Here is a list of things Creationists do not understand:

truth
fact
objectivity
opinion
subjectivity
Science
Evidence
Investigative Process
Theory

Another tirade competing objectivity against subjectivity, against expression of emotion, forming an opinion, having a religious belief, being a human being.

Again, chuck the theory of evolution back to the scientists, and demand that they come up with a theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant. It's not too much to ask.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Again, chuck the theory of evolution back to the scientists, and demand that they come up with a theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant. It's not too much to ask.

If there were evidence to support your style of thinking it wouldn't be. but since there is no evidence we cannot ask scientists to simply lie and make up stuff.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is not a tirade; it is an explanation regarding why you are utterly confused about what "objectivity" and "subjectivity" really mean. That is the crux of creationism; redefining terms to fit a presupposed agenda and spreading ignorance like filth.

Demanding that science chuck the Theory of Evolution because creationists don't like it is completely too much to ask and ludicrous. Conclusions in science, as you have eloquently pointed out, are "forced by the evidence". The evidence supports evolution, which is why evolution is held to be true. Evidence does not support divine creation, which is why science doesn't waste its precious time on proving or disproving divine creation.

Moreover, you grossly misunderstand science as well; because science is more about disproving than it is about proving.

 

[ArtieE]

Again, chuck the theory of evolution back to the scientists, and demand that they come up with a theory of origins in which freedom is regarded as real and relevant. It's not too much to ask.

LOL. Evolution isn't opposed to freedom.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is not a tirade; it is an explanation regarding why you are utterly confused about what "objectivity" and "subjectivity" really mean. That is the crux of creationism; redefining terms to fit a presupposed agenda and spreading ignorance like filth.

Demanding that science chuck the Theory of Evolution because creationists don't like it is completely too much to ask and ludicrous. Conclusions in science, as you have eloquently pointed out, are "forced by the evidence". The evidence supports evolution, which is why evolution is held to be true. Evidence does not support divine creation, which is why science doesn't waste its precious time on proving or disproving divine creation.

Moreover, you grossly misunderstand science as well; because science is more about disproving than it is about proving.

The common understanding of choosing is that you can make one of several options the present.

The common understanding of choosing is not the evolutionist understanding that you are forced by sortingcriteria to a result like a thermostat.

And subjectivity is commonly understood as expression of emotion, by free will, thus choosing in expression. Which choosing results in the enormous variety that we see in expression of emotions.

Evolutionists are on a religious forum putting the screws on subjectivity. That's a sign of a corrupt science discipline.

 

[ArtieE]

Another tirade competing objectivity against subjectivity, against expression of emotion, forming an opinion, having a religious belief, being a human being

Evolution doesn't go against any of this. I evolved and I can be subjective, I can express emotion, I can form an opinion, I could have a religious belief if I wanted to and I am a human being.

 

[ArtieE]

Evolutionists are on a religious forum putting the screws on subjectivity. That's a sign of a corrupt science discipline.

I evolved and I am of the subjective opinion that you are just talking nonsense. But since I'm an evolutionist I can't have subjective opinions so you ARE just talking nonsense.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

There is no rule that says a species becomes "more" evolved or has to become "more" evolved. Sharks, cockroaches and crocadiles/alligators have changed little (evolved, if you will) for many millennia. They have not changed much simply because their current state contains the survival advantages required for their current environments. Their environments have changed little over the millennia. As they are fit for their environment as is, it is unlikely that further changes would not serve to increase their chances of survivability; and further changes may actually serve to decrease their chances of survivability. As a result, changes or "evolving" could lead to their extinction. The idea of a "hierarchy" of "more evolved"/"Less evolved" is purely subjective, based on a bias such as "mammals are a higher order than insects, and primates are a higher order than canines".

Shouldn't there be primates that have evolved? Shouldn't all of the primates evolved? Why are we the only ones that have changed. What environment caused us to evolve? What kind of environment would you need to evolve? I just figured we probably should have seen reptilian or fish or canines or other mammals become more advanced after many years. Why is evolution considered a fact when it's still called a theory. There really is no actual proof of it. There's evidence but evidence is not the same thing as proof.

 

[metis]

All primates appear to have evolved. All organisms have evolved, or so it appears, and that includes reptiles, fish, canines (all the latter came from early forms of wolves). The basic ToE is indeed a fact, as "theory" has a different meaning in science than it does with the lay. There's indeed overwhelming "proof" for it. If there's enough "evidence", this may form what we call an "axiom", and this latter term is pretty much understood as "proof".

Evolution is just common sense, even if one doesn't understand a word of biological science. All material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. If anyone denies this, they deny even basic logic.


ADDED: Sorry NGOTB, as I should have let you deal with this first.

 

[David M]

What is good and what is evil are matters of subjective opinion.

For there is not a single thing that is objectively good or evil.

See, you evolutionists keep denying that subjectivity exists.... oh wait

 

[Theweirdtophat]

All primates appear to have evolved. All organisms have evolved, or so it appears, and that includes reptiles, fish, canines (all the latter came from early forms of wolves). The basic ToE is indeed a fact, as "theory" has a different meaning in science than it does with the lay. There's indeed overwhelming "proof" for it. If there's enough "evidence", this may form what we call an "axiom", and this latter term is pretty much understood as "proof".

Evolution is just common sense, even if one doesn't understand a word of biological science. All material items appear to change over time, and genes are material items. If anyone denies this, they deny even basic logic.


ADDED: Sorry NGOTB, as I should have let you deal with this first.

If there was proof people wouldn't be debating it. Proof isn't the same as evidence. Proof is necessary to prove something. Evidence can help support your claim, but it doesn't make your claim irrefutable. If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes around. Why haven't other creatures become as advanced as we are? We should be seeing technologically advanced crocodiles or turtles by now, both of which are much older than humans. Why are we the only exception? It doesn't make sense and there's too many holes in evolution theory for me to accept. It feels like it's missing something.

 

[ArtieE]

Shouldn't there be primates that have evolved? Shouldn't all of the primates evolved?

They did. All the way from the first cell.

Why are we the only ones that have changed.

We aren't.

What environment caused us to evolve?

Ours.

What kind of environment would you need to evolve?

Any.

I just figured we probably should have seen reptilian or fish or canines or other mammals become more advanced after many years.

They advanced from the first cell to what they are now.

Why is evolution considered a fact when it's still called a theory.

Read about the difference between an ordinary theory and a scientific theory.

There really is no actual proof of it. There's evidence but evidence is not the same thing as proof.

With so much evidence we have for evolution we might as well regard it as proven.

 

[ArtieE]

If there was proof people wouldn't be debating it. Proof isn't the same as evidence. Proof is necessary to prove something.

The definition of proof is "evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement." There's plenty of evidence for evolution establishing it as proven.

Evidence can help support your claim, but it doesn't make your claim irrefutable. If we evolved from apes,

We didn't.

why are there still apes around.

We are apes.

Why haven't other creatures become as advanced as we are?

Many creatures are more advanced than we are. They can see better, jump higher, navigate by sonar, hear better. You name it.

We should be seeing technologically advanced crocodiles or turtles by now, both of which are much older than humans.

Ask a crocodile what a technologically advanced human tastes like. Don't think he needs to care much about technology to eat you.

Why are we the only exception?

Because we evolved a bigger brain.

It doesn't make sense and there's too many holes in evolution theory for me to accept. It feels like it's missing something.

Yes, you are missing the most basic fundamental knowledge about evolution. For starters, read the book Evolution for Dummies http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-For-Dummies-Greg-Krukonis/dp/0470117737 and go on to read the books by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I think people just want to say it's proven to end debates. Having a lot of evidence doesn't equal proof. You need proof to prove something. If we are evolved from apes, there shouldn't still be apes on this Earth. Wouldn't all of them evolve into what we are now? Creatures older than us seem to have evolved very little and yet humans who aren't as old as some creatures evolved drastically. What caused this drastic change? Did something speed it up? Humans became smarter but are there any creatures that became smarter so as they have a concept of civilization and advanced technology? It seems like there's little reason explaining how we became smarter. Just because.

 

[ArtieE]

See, you evolutionists keep denying that subjectivity exists.... oh wait

So the subjective opinion of evolutionists is that subjectivity doesn't exist?

 

[ArtieE]

I think people just want to say it's proven to end debates. Having a lot of evidence doesn't equal proof. You need proof to prove something. If we are evolved from apes, there shouldn't still be apes on this Earth. Wouldn't all of them evolve into what we are now? Creatures older than us seem to have evolved very little and yet humans who aren't as old as some creatures evolved drastically. What caused this drastic change? Did something speed it up? Humans became smarter but are there any creatures that became smarter so as they have a concept of civilization and advanced technology? It seems like there's little reason explaining how we became smarter. Just because.

You don't even know enough about evolution for me to give you an answer you would understand. Read the book Evolution for Dummies and then the books by Richard Dawkins.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I think people just want to say it's proven to end debates. Having a lot of evidence doesn't equal proof. You need proof to prove something. If we are evolved from apes, there shouldn't still be apes on this Earth. Wouldn't all of them evolve into what we are now? Creatures older than us seem to have evolved very little and yet humans who aren't as old as some creatures evolved drastically. What caused this drastic change? Did something speed it up? Humans became smarter but are there any creatures that became smarter so as they have a concept of civilization and advanced technology? It seems like there's little reason explaining how we became smarter. Just because.

We didn't evolve from chimpanzee's. The ancestor that we evolved from does not exist any longer. So the argument that we came from whatever is still around is factually wrong. There are more extreme changes in even smaller amounts of time in other species as well. I don't consider our intelligence to be as amazing as many other evolved traits. So it isn't higher or "more evolved" than any other.

 

[Ouroboros]

Shouldn't there be primates that have evolved?

There are and there were.

We are the one of the evolved primates. Primates that we see in nature are all evolved primates as well. They all evolved from our common ancestor.

Shouldn't all of the primates evolved?

No. Why?

Different lines of heritage, branched out, and evolved traits are adjusted to the conditions they live in. We happened to be part of that branch that evolved high skill of intelligence. Apes are intelligent as well (many tests show them to even be superior in some areas), but there's nothing in evolutionary theory that suggests that only one path is the one and only correct one.

An analogy would be to compare the immigration to America of Europeans. Are there still Europeans after the huge immigration 100-200 years ago? Sure. Not everyone moved, did they? Do they have their own cultures, lives, languages, traditions, separate from Americans? Yup. They do. So a split and then separate developments, is totally possible.

Why are we the only ones that have changed.

There are some 20 different species of intelligent apes, like us, in history, but they didn't survive. We were the lucky ones. But having luck winning on Lotto doesn't mean that God gave you the winning numbers.

What environment caused us to evolve?

A combination of different environmental changes. Drought, ice age, and such.

What kind of environment would you need to evolve? I just figured we probably should have seen reptilian or fish or canines or other mammals become more advanced after many years.

No. You're suggesting that because one type of trait happened to show itself in one species than all other species must have it too. There are animals who have traits that are far superior to us, sight, smell, speed, and more, and just because they were successful for them doesn't mean we would evolved those traits as well. It's a matter of fitting within a niche. Fitting and surviving in a environmental niche doesn't mean that the species evolve all possible "best" traits in the universe. They only evolve traits that make them fit for the niche.

Why is evolution considered a fact when it's still called a theory.

Because it's both.

The fact is that species do evolve. All evidence points to this. So that species evolve is a fact.

How and why they evolved is a different question. The theory of evolution is the attempt to explain how and why species evolve.

That's why it's both a fact (we can see in the evidence that evolution is happening) and a theory (we are trying to explain how and why it is happening).

There really is no actual proof of it.

Wrong. There's plenty. ERVs, transposons, genetic markers, fossils, observed evolution, observed speciation. It's all there. On top of that the radiation of species completely fit the theory and geology at once. Which it only could do if it was true.

There's evidence but evidence is not the same thing as proof.

You don't do "proof" that way in science anyway. To be technical, proof is only in math. No science use "proof" really. It's only about evidence and modeling a theory according to the evidence. The theory of evolution fits the fact of how species evolve.