On Evolution & Creation

[YoursTrue]

The process of change, associated with evolution, is a reasonable assumption and can be inferred by fossil data. Where I differ is how/why this change occurs. The random and statistical models, common to the Life Science, are pseudo-science. Tell me what drives any black box random process? Is it a drunk goddess called lady luck? Random is an assumption with no tangible or rational source. It is a math assumption and not a statement of fact based on laws of science. Tell me the facts!

Random and statistics are often demonstrated by rolling dice. If I have a set of two, six sided dice, and keep rolling, there are odds for each roll, while all the possible combinations, with enough rolls, will repeat over time. Yet evolution does not repeat over time like dice. Life from scratch does not happen again, again, even in the lab. The dinosaurs; double sixes, have not reappeared again after millions of rolls of the dice. The current model is not modeling the reality of evolution, which is non repeating novelty and diversity. The casino model does not work in the reality of evolution. Card games are based on repeatable outcomes and hierarchies of outcomes.

What the data says is, things happen once, and then move to another future state. This is not random but has a sense of direction, forward in time. Faith in a lottery or casino model of evolution is not science. People have won lotteries more than once; repeat dice model.

If we stick to a dice model, evolution behaves more like an infinite sided dice, so it may take infinite rolls to repeat any step. This would show up as different critters each roll. But that infinite sided dice model also implies, it will take an infinite time between each needed step; side, and therefore life should never have occurred, or should still be very basic. Neither are observed.

The solution is evolution is based on a law of science; 2nd law, entropy. Entropy has to increase. Entropy is not a wave, that repeats like rolls of the dice or energy. It has a linear increase, like we see in evolution. Since all of current evolutionary science, is based on the pseudo science of dice, what should be done? Does separation of church and state come into effect? It is time for moth balls or the fire pit?

Darwin postulated natural selection, which is also not about dice. It is about real logical natural pressures; based on laws of physics, pushing and pulling, with increasing entropy the drive for the advances in complexity, over time, that should not repeat no matter how many rolls. It will quantum step forward and can meet the reasonable time lines. Is it moth balls or fire pit? I am fine either way.

Thank you for your post. Something else I'd like to point out which is about Ernst Haeckel's drawings regarding his theory of embryonic evolution. Although highly contested today by scientists, said to be inaccurate, it is said to still be presented in some textbooks.

 

[Pogo]

When you have nothing sound to offer in support of anti-scientific claims, the best that can be done is logical fallacies like false equivalence. If one or two bad apples exist, then the entire orchard of science is poisoned and can be rejected without review. I see this as expanded to mean, "I have no explanations to support my own claims, but this gives me tenuous, questionable and doubtful reasons to wish science away to the cornfield". Sound reasoning. Not.

its the tiny little doubt argument, so long as they can come up with some reason to question something then by fair and balanced, their argument needs to be given equal credence. It is BS, but the best that some have to hold their cognitive dissonance at bay. It is often a knife edge between "true belief" and radical atheism.

 

[Pogo]

Thank you, I can see here in the article, that only the smallest number of scientists believe in intelligent design, 148,800 scientists agree with evolution.

I am trying to keep an open mind and listen to the information on both sides of the argument, thanks so much, every bit of information helps.

It is actually not a numbers or popularity game, in science you gain adherents by positing solutions that others can verify for themselves or read about these verifications as if they had done them themselves. Those ideas that fail this test are discarded, but what another person thinks and believes is not important, only whether there is a good logical argument for the position.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with you 148,800 scientists believe in evolution, and only a little over 1,000 scientist believe in intelligent design. I am still gathering information from both sides, it is not that easy for me because I never really liked science when I was younger, now I seem to be a lot more interested.

It is not 148,000 scientists believe in evolution vs 1,000 that question it, it is a tongue in cheek way of pointing out that lists are not how scientific consensus is determined. The consensus is determined by publishing hypotheses and data to support them and if you do so, then others may come to the same conclusion. If not, then there will be die-hards like the flat earth believers, but you will find no convincing support once you learn to evaluate the evidence.

Anyhow, keep learning and questioning, that is how knowledge is gained, not by assuming a conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read everything you said, I will keep your words in mind, but I disagree on this one point - As the long as there is two scientists, there is "both sides"

Here is the thing, to be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method. And so called creation scientists do not do that. If you learned the basics of science you could see that for yourself. And for a real life example you should watch the PBS documentary about the Dover Trial. That was the most recent attempt by creationists to get their nonsense taught in schools. The judge was an ideal one for the creation side. he was a conservative judge appointed by George Bush. But he was also an honest judge. Judges are trained experts on evidence and he could easily understand that the creation side had no evidence and that they were only making ad hoc arguments. He was not kind to them at all in his decision.

Creationists rely on the fact that most people do not understand the concept of evidence. And creationists that argue against evolution absolutely refuse to learn the concept, even though it is easy to understand. They can see that if they understood what was and was not evidence that they would have to openly lie. So they have to keep themselves willfully ignorant too fool themselves.

 

[walt]

Here is the thing, to be a scientist one has to follow the scientific method. And so called creation scientists do not do that. If you learned the basics of science you could see that for yourself. And for a real life example you should watch the PBS documentary about the Dover Trial. That was the most recent attempt by creationists to get their nonsense taught in schools. The judge was an ideal one for the creation side. he was a conservative judge appointed by George Bush. But he was also an honest judge. Judges are trained experts on evidence and he could easily understand that the creation side had no evidence and that they were only making ad hoc arguments. He was not kind to them at all in his decision.

Creationists rely on the fact that most people do not understand the concept of evidence. And creationists that argue against evolution absolutely refuse to learn the concept, even though it is easy to understand. They can see that if they understood what was and was not evidence that they would have to openly lie. So they have to keep themselves willfully ignorant too fool themselves.

Thank you I will keep all your words in mind.

 

[Audie]

Thank you for all your words, I am currently looking at the information from both sides, still gathering information Thanks.

At some point you will see there arent two sides.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I agree with you 148,800 scientists believe in evolution, and only a little over 1,000 scientist believe in intelligent design. I am still gathering information from both sides, it is not that easy for me because I never really liked science when I was younger, now I seem to be a lot more interested.

Where do you get that number? That isn't even close to the number of scientists in the US or the globally. I'm skeptical.

Most surveys indicate that 98% of scientists accept (not believe in as if it is a religion) the theory of evolution. That would come to millions of scientists.

Science isn't something someone can learn over a weekend, that is for sure. I've been studying since I was young. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, ecology are just some of the areas I've spent time learning. There are more subdisciplines I've had course work in and hands on experience with.

I would suggest a biology textbook and perhaps some popular works about evolution. Books by the paleontologist Donald Prothero, the biologist Jerry Coyne, "What evolution is" by the late Ernst Mayr, or Ken Miller's "Only a theory". There are so many, just do a Google search.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I read everything you said, I will keep your words in mind, but I disagree on this one point - As the long as there is two scientists, there is "both sides"

Not really. The tiny minority that dissent aren't doing so on scientific grounds and with evidence. It is ideological. Religion, not science.

 

[walt]

Where do you get that number? That isn't even close to the number of scientists in the US or the globally. I'm skeptical.

Most surveys indicate that 98% of scientists accept (not believe in as if it is a religion) the theory of evolution. That would come to millions of scientists.

Science isn't something someone can learn over a weekend, that is for sure. I've been studying since I was young. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, ecology are just some of the areas I've spent time learning. There are more subdisciplines I've had course work in and hands on experience with.

I would suggest a biology textbook and perhaps some popular works about evolution. Books by the paleontologist Donald Prothero, the biologist Jerry Coyne, "What evolution is" by the late Ernst Mayr, or Ken Miller's "Only a theory". There are so many, just do a Google search.

I got it from Pogo's Wikipedia article

On Evolution & Creation

Do you ever read what people posted and respond to it? Or just make random responses? I read your post and responded to it.

www.religiousforums.com

I wouldn't care if it was 4 scientists versus 20,000. What makes better sense, considering all the information?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I got it from Pogo's Wikipedia article

On Evolution & Creation

Do you ever read what people posted and respond to it? Or just make random responses? I read your post and responded to it.

www.religiousforums.com

I wouldn't care if it was 4 scientists versus 20,000, to me what makes better sense, considering all the information.

Perhaps you should learn the basics of science first. I can help. You need to understand both the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. By the way, this information applies to all of the sciences.

 

[walt]

Not really. The tiny minority that dissent aren't doing so on scientific grounds and with evidence. It is ideological. Religion, not science.

To me it wouldn't matter if it was only one person.

 

[walt]

Perhaps you should learn the basics of science first. I can help. You need to understand both the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. By the way, this information applies to all of the sciences.

Thank you

 

[icant]

It looks like you don't know what the theory of evolution is or says. Evolution allows for prior creationism.

Evolution is change over time. Evolution requires life-forms to evolve.

You did not have and still do not have a first life-form to evolve.

Sort of. We don't normally refer to those chemicals as dust, but we can allow a little poetry into the discussion.

You don't normally talk about man being the first life-form on earth either. But he was, according to my book on creation that has been handed down for years.

I guess that I was correct about you having no interest in educating yourself.

All I care about are the facts.

Fact # 1 There was an absence of anything at T=0.
Fact # 2 There was nothing there to expand into the universe we have today.
Fact # 3 It is assumed that a singularity existed there which is only a place where the math don't work.
Fact # 4 You have zero evidence to place your faith in.
Fact # 5 You have zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place.
Fact # 6 All you have is your faith to believe what you believe and that puts you in the same boat as I am in.

Since we both have to believe in what we believe by our faith we will never agree unless we just agree to disagree.

Enjoy,

 

[Jimmy]

Evolution is change over time. Evolution requires life-forms to evolve.

You did not have and still do not have a first life-form to evolve.


You don't normally talk about man being the first life-form on earth either. But he was, according to my book on creation that has been handed down for years.

All I care about are the facts.

Fact # 1 There was an absence of anything at T=0.
Fact # 2 There was nothing there to expand into the universe we have today.
Fact # 3 It is assumed that a singularity existed there which is only a place where the math don't work.
Fact # 4 You have zero evidence to place your faith in.
Fact # 5 You have zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place.
Fact # 6 All you have is your faith to believe what you believe and that puts you in the same boat as I am in.

Since we both have to believe in what we believe by our faith we will never agree unless we just agree to disagree.

Enjoy,

You’re right about that. People only have faith in abiogenesis, nothing more.

 

[Audie]

I read everything you said, I will keep your words in mind, but I disagree on this one point - As the long as there is two scientists, there is "both sides"

In the sense that there’s two sides of the law, cops and robbers.

As long as there are zero (0) facts known that could disprove evolution.
the deniers don’t have a “side”. Flat earthers don’t have a side either.

An attitude, maybe.

 

[YoursTrue]

God did it is no more of an explanation than saying that Norm did it. You have no god to demonstrate nor any mechanism for it to do anything if it did exist.

To the best of my knowledge, neither you nor the Norm you mention are God. The Bible is not a science textbook that changes its statements or findings from year to year. It's purpose is not to discuss DNA, RNA, and brain sizes.

 

[walt]

Perhaps you should learn the basics of science first. I can help. You need to understand both the scientific method and the concept of scientific evidence. By the way, this information applies to all of the sciences.

James Tour has been a chemist for over 40 years, I am not trying to become a scientist or chemist. Michael Behe has been a biologist for approximately 40 years as of 2023.

I've been watching videos from all the Scientists, Chemist and Biologist.

 

[YoursTrue]

@It Aint Necessarily So:You said, " Evolution allows for prior creationism."
It does?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution is change over time. Evolution requires life-forms to evolve.

You did not have and still do not have a first life-form to evolve.

Actually we do. We know that life was much simpler in the past. What you are talking about is abiogenesis, or in other words where the first life came from. Was it natural abiogenesis, and we do have evidence for that, or was it magical abiogenesis, the kind that you believe in. There is no evidence for that.

You don't normally talk about man being the first life-form on earth either. But he was, according to my book on creation that has been handed down for years.

So what? Why should anyone believe an old book that gets science wrong?

All I care about are the facts.

Hey! Me too.

Fact # 1 There was an absence of anything at T=0.

We do not know that. That may be the case for some models of the Big Bang, but not for all of them. In fact "T=0" may be an impossibility.

Fact # 2 There was nothing there to expand into the universe we have today.

Space is what expanded so that is not a problem. Space does not appear to be expanding into anything today.

Fact # 3 It is assumed that a singularity existed there which is only a place where the math don't work.

No, the evidence tells us quite clearly that there was a singularity. I do not think that you understand what the definition of that term. That there was a singularity is strongly supported by evidence.

Fact # 4 You have zero evidence to place your faith in.

False. We have plenty of evidence. The problem may be that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Fact # 5 You have zero evidence that abiogenesis ever took place.

That is definitely false. Even you claim that an abiogenesis event took place. Once again, you do not seem to understand the terms that you are abusing.

Fact # 6 All you have is your faith to believe what you believe and that puts you in the same boat as I am in.

This is false again Faith is your flaw, not ours. Our beliefs are evidence based. Would you like to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Since we both have to believe in what we believe by our faith we will never agree unless we just agree to disagree.

No, once again, faith is your flaw. The only "faith" that we have is that the universe can be explained rationally and I would not even call that a faith based belief since so far reason has worked very well.

Enjoy,

Oh we are. I love to see your errors Would you care to try to remedy some of them? Once again, we can go over the concept of evidence without ever mentioning the fact of evolution.