Irony of the evolutionary belief

[AdamjEdgar]

"There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective,” Hawking said."
See? There was NEVER a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. IT JUST SEEMED THAT WAY...lol...

I dont think you are really considering the problem. Science shows that the universe is explanding (hence the rise of big bang theory).

Something expanding must have come from a singularity

By sheer logic, singularity suggests origins. So there must have been a beginning for the universe.

Universe has a beginning...so who or what caused that beginning?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Universe has a beginning...so who or what caused that beginning?

Universe is our perception, otherwise none exists. What exists is a field of forces. Now how did it come about?
This is something that we do not visualize at the moment.
But what prevents the field to have two phases, existent and non-existent?
The perception of universe was born out of 'absolute nothing'. It may become non-existent at one point of time.

 

[Charles Philips]

I'm on the science ship. Maybe you missed my sarcasm.

Yes, all creationists like yourself are still on the Ark to this day looking for land. Just floating aimlessly.

Indeed, I got a good night's sleep. But I have been on the journey against creationist fraud since 1996.

Yeah, I feel your pain, those creationist never let up. They cause trouble in every place they dock, I can't see you wining this battle. The creationist will overwhelm the scientists and rule the world

 

[Charles Philips]

So much fail in a single sentence....

1. there was no circular reasoning present in my post

2. circular reasoning is not a "theory". it's a logical fallacy


Having said that, I note you didn't even bother explaining to us all why you think Tiktaalik doesn't count as a transitional. Not surprised though.
Do you even know how it was found by prediction? I bet you don't.

In fact, I bet you don't even know what it is or why it is a remarkable fossil. I bet you have to go to your creationist sources to copy-paste some ignorant fallacious drivel to pretend to be able to argue against it. And I bet that if you do that, it will consist of mega-fallacious reasoning at best or conspiratory nonsense at worst.

Prove me wrong.

I have thousands of rich Christian Scientist on board, every single one of them will hand over everything they own to the wise guy who ever discovers a single transitional fossil.

Ray Comfort stunned a University professor when he asked the professor if a transitional fossil has ever been discovered. The professor looked like he was having a mental breakdown, he stuttered and dribbled some nonsense before capitulating to Mr. Comfort.

Don't you think this so called professor would know about this mysterious TikTok fossil. If this thing was real it would make world news and end the debate between creationist and pseudo scientists. But the reality is you have nothing, but some unknown pond scum fossil

 

[Charles Philips]

No. I judge them by the nonsense that they spew with their mouths.

Sounds like you don't know the significance of the banana in that picture and by extension you don't know how Comfort got his "banana man" nickname.

You should look it up.

I'm not into childish name callers, I got out of that phase in my early teens

 

[Charles Philips]

Apparently you've never heard of genetics before. Or biology, Or the fossil record.
Time to get reading. Start with academic sites and scientific journals rather than Answers in Genesis who have built-in biases and present the evidence in a dishonest fashion.

I'm highly educated and well informed about this subject. The difference between my view and yours is, I have never swallowed kool aid just because some dude with a piece of paper told me to. I only swallow something if it passes muster.

So I investigated all the opposing views and schools of thought before I chose to run with anything. You guys just blindly swallow and dare not ask questions, that's why I have no respect for blind guides leading the blind.

 

[Charles Philips]

Apparently you've never heard of genetics before. Or biology, Or the fossil record.
Time to get reading. Start with academic sites and scientific journals rather than Answers in Genesis who have built-in biases and present the evidence in a dishonest fashion.

I don't want to subject myself to such trash, as it's highly insulting to my intelligence. I'll let you guys take the kool aid and I'll stick with the truth

 

[danieldemol]

..and I observe that men often go out to "score", without intention to create anything.

Irrrlevant in my view.

..and I suppose you will tell us that evolution is responsible, as "it happens" in order that
the species (mankind) will survive.

You use strange words like "responsible" as though evolution is morally culpable, but it is for certain that without men getting laid in the absence of a man-made process such as cloning or IVF that the human species would not survive without sex.

"You find that people cooperate, you say, 'Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.'

It contributes to the genes of the group perpetuating over other non-cooperating groups, not necessarily to the genes of the individual perpetuating in my view.

You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that's obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's.

If you eliminate competition in a fight between either two individuals or two groups it does mean the victorious group or individual has the opportunity to perpetuate its genes at the expense of the losers in my view.

In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."
- Noam Chomsky -

Sure, but some stories have explanatory power over all the facts (transitional fossils, endogenous retrovirus insertion in our DNA etc) such as evolution, whilst other stories such as God poofing the species into existence fully formed do not have that explanatory power in my view.

 

[Charles Philips]

Incorrect. It is a fact that I don't believe you understand or support science. You have offered no evidence to support any such position. In fact, all that is available evidence supports the conclusion that you don't understand or support science. It is sad that people in this day and age can live in such ignorance of fairly common and easily understandable material, but it is fact that many do and willfully I have seen.

I also made no reference to supporting pseudoscience. I'm not a follower of Comfy Ray and his crocoduck.

Seems the evidence continues to be against you.

I don't recognize that you recognize science and have provided nothing of credibility at all.

I don't even see the point of trying to engage you. All that you have done is assert without evidence and make posts that are laughable projection.

I think further attempts to get you to support your position would be a waste of time given the evidence of today.

I don't believe in pseudo science, which teaches false theories like this crazy evolution madness. There are many sciences, so it's a case of buyer be aware. I don't buy into your false science, I stick to the one which is supported by facts

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can accept Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection, but the dice and cards approach to genetic change and evolution is conceptually flawed. Uncertainty and margin of error means the theory is not fully rational, but still has a religious black box faith angle, which explains the religious war.

No. There's nothing irrational about the theory.
And what explains what-you-call the "religious war" is no more or less then creationists being upset that there is an explanation for the origins of humanity that doesn't involve their deity of choice.

This is the only theory in science that constantly debates religion; religious war.

No. It is the theory that creationists get upset about, because they have emotional investment in their origins of humanity myth.
The theory in fact doesn't attack religion in any way. It's creationists attacking the theory.
And it's not the only one either. Creationists attack any scientific idea that they feel isn't compatible with their religious beliefs (like abiogenesis and big bang cosmology).

Let me explain the source of the major conceptual flaw. It can be shown that there are aspects of the DNA that are very conservative and rarely mutate. There are other areas that are more prone to change. In the land of gambling casinos, this tells me the DNA dice are loaded. The problems is, how can you still use math connected to unloaded dice, to explain loaded dice? It is called cheating. This cheating may be unconscious, but is being over compensated as reflected in this religious war.

The fact that some parts of DNA are less subjected to mutation rate then others has nothing to do with "loaded dice" and everything with mechanisms that are themselves the result of evolution. These genes are genes that play crucial roles in survival / reproduction. Mechanisms have evolved to make them less prone to mutation since almost any mutation in those genes will prove to be disastrous to fitness.

These are themselves evolved mechanisms. Not things that are "build into" it.

Conceptually, what the DNA is doing is reducing the negative uncertainty of purely random change, by making the possible change less destructive. If we randomly changed parts on any machine, there is more that can go wrong, then can go right. The machine will break, long before it becomes a better mousetrap. Let us put the radiator in the trunk, so it is easier to work on the motor.

The machine part is a false analogy as that is a system that has been designed from the ground up and not itself an evolved system. It for example has far less redundancy and interchangeable parts or options for repurposing of functions. All things wich are rather typical for evolved systems.
Having said that, the "random" part of mutation is that mutation is "random with respect to fitness".
As in: if a creature would benefit from mutation X, plays no role in wheter mutation X will occur or not.

What the DNA is essentially doing is like saying, you cannot move any of the parts connected to the motor and the drive train. You will be limited to cosmetic changes in the body style, and the inside cabin; colors, materials, textures, etc. There changes are more subjective, and less objectively destructive to the overall performance of the car. Whether we have a white interior and a red car, or a white car with a red interior, it is still very stylish and sporty. The most common evolutionary change is cosmetic; new leaf style but same photosynthesis.

This is incorrect. For example, just look at the E Coli experiment. The mutations there were not merely cosmetic. The mutations in fact opened up an entirely novel metabolic pathway, allowing the organism to grow on citrate while none of the other isolated populations were able to do that and neither were its ancestors.
This is not merely cosmetic.

The question becomes, how does the DNA know the difference, and how can it enforce this?

By evolving "defense mechanisms" like MMR (DNA mismatch repair).

You guys will need to modify statistical models to include loaded dice math, and stop dealing from the bottom of the deck.

No. It sounds like you think you have presented us here with some type of revolutionary information. You have not.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And wouldn’t it be strange that the initial position of the stars was such that they would eventually form words and sentences in English?........wouldn’t that cry for ID?

Why?

How is that different from a cloud that looks like a rabbit?

All hail the mighty rabbit!

No, obviously given your impossible high standards, nothing will ever count as convincing evidence for you.

My "high standards"?
You mean I should be convinced by hypothetical nonsense of which you yourself acknowledge that it was all natural to begin with?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your point?

Look up. It's there. Flying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have thousands of rich Christian Scientist on board, every single one of them will hand over everything they own to the wise guy who ever discovers a single transitional fossil.

Then they'll be poor very fast if they are honest.
But they aren't off course.
In fact, I bet they got rich by tax-free donations from their fanboys.

Ray Comfort stunned a University professor when he asked the professor if a transitional fossil has ever been discovered. The professor looked like he was having a mental breakdown, he stuttered and dribbled some nonsense before capitulating to Mr. Comfort.

Newsflash: youtube clips are edited. And comfort has been caught with his pants down multiple times with dishonest editing.
Try a science publication instead of dishonest youtube clips.

Your "argument by youtube" isn't impressing anyone.

Don't you think this so called professor would know about this mysterious TikTok fossil.

Tiktaalik is not mysterious nor is it a secret.
It's one of the best known transitional fossils around, partly due to its significance in evolutionary history and in part because of the sheer impressiveness of how it was found.

Neither of which you know about, obviously.
You might want to look it up.

Meanwhile, still no explanation fo why you (or rather: your creationist overlords) think it doesn't count as a transition.

Note that you asked for a transitional and then received an answer. Note now that you are doing your outmost best to not discuss it.
Is this an example of that honest upright christian behavior I keep hearing about?

If this thing was real

it is.

it would make world news

it did.

and end the debate between creationist and pseudo scientists.

Please. Nothing would stop creationist. Just like nothing would stop flat earthers.
Their position is based on religious faith, not on evidence.
So no amount of evidence is ever going to change their mind.

Also, don't forget that the income of these creationists literally depend on advancing their creationist propaganda.
Telling their flock "we were wrong" would instantly mean an end to their "seminars" and book sales and youtube channel income.

This is not the case with a scientist. In fact, stubbornly sticking to an idea that is demonstrably wrong will in fact accomplish the opposite of keeping their jobs.
A scientist's income depends on the advancement of knowledge, not on upholding the status quo.

But the reality is you have nothing, but some unknown pond scum fossil

Try actually explaining why you think this fossil isn't a transitional.
This off course means that you will first have to look it up and actually read about it.
I know you are scared of learning. But give it a shot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not into childish name callers, I got out of that phase in my early teens

"tiktok fossil"
"pond scum fossil"

uhu.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm highly educated and well informed about this subject.

Okay, now I am 95% sure you are a Poe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'm not into childish name callers, I got out of that phase in my early teens

Actually, reading your posts, including the very next two after this, says otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't believe in pseudo science, which teaches false theories like this crazy evolution madness. There are many sciences, so it's a case of buyer be aware. I don't buy into your false science, I stick to the one which is supported by facts

Whatever.

Thanks for letting me know. It saves me time.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, I feel your pain, those creationist never let up.

Yes, much like natural disasters. The well educated clean up the mess creationists make.

They cause trouble in every place they dock,

Yes, like bacterial infections.

I can't see you wining this battle.

Creationists already lost, as they don't have evidence, and fail due to unwarranted assumptions about their religious stories. We see the well educated constantly correct the errors that creationsits make, and then the creationists deny what science and reason concludes. And let's not forget, creationism is complete fraud. There are no universities doing creationist work. There are no biolabs doing creationist research on the mutations of bacterias and virus so new vaccines can be made. There are no creationist science labs at all. All there are is office spaces rented where creationist disinformation is written. And then it's sold to gullible Christians, and even some Muslims. So what battle is being won, except the battle against Christians being well educated?

The creationist will overwhelm the scientists and rule the world

You bet, the return to witch trials and executions, because that's what Jesus taught.

 

[F1fan]

I'm highly educated and well informed about this subject.

You aren't well informed on science. You don't even seem well informed on creationism, which these days is called Intelligent Design.

The difference between my view and yours is, I have never swallowed kool aid just because some dude with a piece of paper told me to. I only swallow something if it passes muster.

Creationists used to insist on the Ussher timeline where the earth and universe is only 6000 years old. After they tried to make the history of geology and biology fit into 6000 years they eventually started oving it to about 10,000 years. Well what is the point? The only reason to claim a young earth is to fit the Ussher timeline. If they can't mak that fit, then forget it.

So the classic YEC ceationism started to be changed to ID, and the old universe (as scientists discovered) was accepted. But Christian literalists still tried to find someplace in science to shoehorn their God into. And that is where the Kool Aid comes in. All the fraud created by AiG and the Discovery Institute, who don't do science, just invent disinformation to sell to gullible Christians.

So I investigated all the opposing views and schools of thought before I chose to run with anything. You guys just blindly swallow and dare not ask questions, that's why I have no respect for blind guides leading the blind.

You didn't set aside your religious bias, which is a major flaw in your approach.

 

[SkepticThinker]

you need to read a dictionary...

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
theory
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
Similar:
hypothesis
thesis
conjecture
supposition
speculation
postulation
postulate
proposition
premise
surmise
assumption
presumption
presupposition
notion
guess
hunch
feeling
suspicion
opinion
view
belief
thinking
thought(s)
judgement
contention
principles
ideas
concepts
principled explanations
laws
philosophy
ideology
system of ideas
science
a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based.
"a theory of education"
an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action.
"my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

That's not the definition of a scientific theory.
The one I gave is the definition of a scientific theory, which is what we're talking about here.