Some questions about evolution.

[Alceste]

I would just reiterate that each person should examine the evidence for and against evolution versus creation for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. It is sad so many have been taken in by the ToE propoganda machine.

And yet you yourself have not examined any evidence apart from Awake! and the movie Expelled. Is this an example of "Do as I say, not as I do?"

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, I believe each house had an intelligent builder. (Hebrews 3:4) To the contrary, it appears the ToE advocates believe non-living material got together and produced a living cell somehow, even though this is statistically impossible. But thanks for the ridicule. It clearly displays the arrogance displayed by so many ToE apologists.

Show us your math.

Also, care to reply to this: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2605732-post386.html

 

[Valjean]

Oh God, not the "statistically impossible" argument again.

Go outside and find a rock, Rusra. Now what are the odds of that particular rock, with that particular size, shape composition, &c, being in that specific geographical place, at that particular time, and in that particular position?
The odds are astronomical! Statistically impossible!

The statistical odds of any particular thing happening are, indeed, astronomical, but the odds of none of these incredibly unlikely specifics occurring is even more unlikely.

Wanna see a few simple rules generating a complex object? a clock, in fact? [youtube]mcAq9bmCer0[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCer0
<<keeping fingers crossed that link will work>>

You might also take a look at the Mandelbrot set, which yields infinite complexity with a simple equation.

 

[Valjean]

Is there some trick to linking you tube videos? I type in the address I see in the address bar, but it comes up "unavailable."

 

[johnhanks]

I would just reiterate that each person should examine the evidence for and against evolution versus creation for themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

Rusra, that's exactly what we have done.

It is sad so many have been taken in by the ToE propoganda machine.

Now, setting aside the paranoia implicit in 'Anyone who disagrees with me has been taken in by a propaganda machine', let's pause and examine the machine you refer to. Who constructed it, who runs it, and for what ultimate purpose? Do you really believe there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists who secretly know evolution to be false, but continue to promulgate it for their own ends? If so, what are these ends? And what exactly stops any one of these (clearly unscrupulous) individuals from blowing the whistle on the whole charade and becoming rich and famous on the subsequent TV and book tie-ins?

Seriously, old chum, when you start basing your entire argument on the malign influence of a 'propoganda machine', you really had better be able to demonstrate the machine's existence and explain how it is sustained.

 

[Acim]

Though you don't say so, I'm assuming this is in response to my #357. When I say ToE is challenged every time a biologist makes a new observation, I mean just that. When protein structures and DNA sequences were first analysed, it was perfectly feasible that they would bear no relation at all to evolutionary relationships as already understood: had that been the case, ToE would have been seriously challenged.

Why would the conclusion that they bear no relation to evolutionary relationships be deemed feasible? That very much reads like a preconception, and since you are finishing with 'had that been the case' when it wasn't, it seems to me, you are saying a foul ball in the right field stands, is akin to a serious challenge to our baseball team (evolution) winning, or moving forward.

If ToE is correct, fossils should occur in the 'right' strata and in the company only of their contemporaries.

Again, how is it tested with discovery of a new fossil?

 

[Acim]

Some here bang on about a creator / designer as if that were a testable fact, not an assumption, yet they use that assumption as the basis of their argument against science. Can you see why some may not be taken very seriously here?

I'm working up from assumption to reasonable hypothesis. I am saying that existence of science (conscious intelligence) and what scientists do with scientific method (design) in relation to studying, testing, and concluding information about, or really within, the known universe is evidence of (natural) intelligent design. I don't believe it is the only evidence, but is perhaps the best evidence we have available to us presently. Perhaps you could help me formulate this idea into a testable hypothesis.

Btw, where in this idea that I'm putting forth do you see me referencing either theology or a creator?

 

[Noaidi]

Btw, where in this idea that I'm putting forth do you see me referencing either theology or a creator?

You're responding to something I addressed to rusra. His posts have a number of biblical references.

 

[Acim]

Facts speak for themselves.
The fact that you are much more interested in your fantasy over the facts speaks volumes.

You are still doing nothing more than playing semantics games as though winning will somehow enhance the preconceptions of Evolution.

 

[Noaidi]

I'm working up from assumption to reasonable hypothesis. I am saying that existence of science (conscious intelligence) and what scientists do with scientific method (design) in relation to studying, testing, and concluding information about, or really within, the known universe is evidence of (natural) intelligent design. I don't believe it is the only evidence, but is perhaps the best evidence we have available to us presently. Perhaps you could help me formulate this idea into a testable hypothesis.

I'll let you come up with your own hypothesis regarding ID.

 

[Acim]

The reason for the ridicule and contempt is because of the ignorance many display when trying to refute evolution. People are using theology to argue against science. Many don't even grasp what evolution entails.
Some here bang on about a creator / designer as if that were a testable fact, not an assumption, yet they use that assumption as the basis of their argument against science. Can you see why some may not be taken very seriously here?

Sorry, I thought people meant anyone who argues the preconceived notions that some proponents of scientific materialism desperately hang onto.

My bad, I now see it was meant for only one person in this thread, and is thus a very isolated assertion, rather than general idea as I was interpreting in the above quote.

 

[McBell]

I understand you don't agree with scientists and millions of others who believe the available evidence demonstrates that life was created by God

Repeating that a lie is the truth over and over will not make it true.

 

[McBell]

You are still doing nothing more than playing semantics games as though winning will somehow enhance the preconceptions of Evolution.

Nope.
Not at all.
I accept that evolution is an observable fact.
I am not trying to win some random semantics game.
I am merely providing fodder for those who wish to further preach the sermons.
Glad to see it is working.

 

[Noaidi]

Sorry, I thought people meant anyone who argues the preconceived notions that some proponents of scientific materialism desperately hang onto.

My bad, I now see it was meant for only one person in this thread, and is thus a very isolated assertion, rather than general idea as I was interpreting in the above quote.

OK, unclear phrasing on my part. I was referring to the RF discussions on evolution in general, not only this thread. There are so many threads similar to this one that the arguments rapidly tend to follow the same pattern.

 

[Father Heathen]

"Must...retain....a literal interpretation.....of an ancient....creation myth....at any cost....."

Why?

Want to believe in god? That's fine. The theory of evolution and the concept of a god are not mutually exclusive. It's not necessary to believe the wacky nonsense that ancient primitives had attributed to god in order to believe in god.

If your faith requires willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty, then perhaps it's time to reevaluate it. For integrity's sake.

 

[Matthew78]

Evolutionist Francis Hitching writes: &#8220;When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren&#8217;t there.&#8221; (The Neck of the Giraffe p19).

I have read several chapters of The Neck of the Giraffe. The author isn't a scientist and much of his analysis is out of touch with modern science. I'm not trying to attack the author but I find his arguments uncogent and his statements lead me to believe that he doesn't have much familiarity with the relevant scientific literature.

Furthermore, you quote from him but you don't provide his "explanations" of fossil specimens which mainstream biologists and paleontologists take to be evidence of evolutionary transitions between major groups. How does Hitching explain, for instance, the mammal-like reptiles?

Another thing- Hitching was still an evolutionist despite what you quoted from him. I read from his book, too. He proposes his own theory of evolution; it's not like he abandoned evolutionary theory in favor of creationism. He has his own hypothesis and I'm afraid that he's marginalized himself from the scientific community as something of a crank.

Evolutionist Niles Eldredge states that the fossil record shows, not a gradual accumulation of change, but for long periods "little or no evolutionary change accumulates in most species." This in a book entitled "The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism"

I have a copy of his book The Triiumph of Evolution. In fact, Eldredge makes a convincing case for evolution from his argument regarding the nested hierarchy of life. For some reason you didn't quote this part of a previous post of mine where I mentioned his argument. In fact, Eldredge doesn't deny that any transitional fossils exist! Eldredge believes that on the species level living organisms appear fully formed and show little evolutionary change. The transitional fossils appear at higher taxonomic levels. This is what led him and Gould to propose "punctuated equilibrium". This was a hypothesis to explain the rarity of transitional fossil forms.

Carl Sagan admitted "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer" (Cosmos p.29)

Sagan admitted this? He's stating an obvious fact. The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer. But notice the key word: could. He's not saying that it is. The fossil record can be consistent with both creation and evolution but is only likely to be consistent with just one hypothesis.Furthermore, saying that the fossil record is consistent with the idea of a Great Designer (which Sagan is not saying) is not the same thing as saying that the fossil record is consistent with a belief in special creation.

The problem here is that only Eldredge and Sagan are actual scientists and neither of them are admitting anything damaging. Creationists would like to think that they are because they want to think that most evolutionists will go through great depths to deny creation so as to not be accountable to a creator.

While ToE advocates point to the fossil evidence as proof of evolution, the facts show the opposite.

Proof of evolution? I know of no such evolutionist who has ever made such a claim. I doubt that any scientist would any say that there is any "proof" in the same sense of proving a mathematical theorem. Most evolutionists argue that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. This much I agree with.

But let me ask you someting: what would it take to convince you that evolution happened, if anything?

 

[Acim]

Nope.
Not at all.

And I see you in denial about this. As apparently you see me in denial, even while I've posited an idea meant to be testable hypothesis. Which is so far being ignored, and will actually be okay with me if it is ignored, since I am still working through the idea.

But does seem like you and the other posse do tend to gang up, ridicule, and verbally attack in way that is mostly semantical, and advancing nothing but own ego righteousness on this topic. Pouncing on anything that seems to confront your precious (version of) facts.

What you all are up to is NOT science, and I'm pretty sure you know that. There is clearly no rational method to the argument / debate being made in this thread (on either side), so instead, it becomes same silly game, different thread, that we all did in another thread, just 5 minutes ago.

IMO, you clearly play semantical games, and often utilize straw-man to invoke defense of something that really doesn't need a defense. But is now determined that a good offense means rational defense.

I don't see this as only one sided, but do phrase this post this way, because any indication (at all) of questioning, criticizing, or even (heaven forbid) disagreeing with TOE is seen as utter and disdainful ignorance, complete weakness and deserving no mercy, but instead pouncing upon pouncing of self inflated righteousness.

Here in this debate, Charlie Sheen's version of winning is everything.

 

[McBell]

And I see you in denial about this. As apparently you see me in denial, even while I've posited an idea meant to be testable hypothesis. Which is so far being ignored, and will actually be okay with me if it is ignored, since I am still working through the idea.

But does seem like you and the other posse do tend to gang up, ridicule, and verbally attack in way that is mostly semantical, and advancing nothing but own ego righteousness on this topic. Pouncing on anything that seems to confront your precious (version of) facts.

What you all are up to is NOT science, and I'm pretty sure you know that. There is clearly no rational method to the argument / debate being made in this thread (on either side), so instead, it becomes same silly game, different thread, that we all did in another thread, just 5 minutes ago.

IMO, you clearly play semantical games, and often utilize straw-man to invoke defense of something that really doesn't need a defense. But is now determined that a good offense means rational defense.

I don't see this as only one sided, but do phrase this post this way, because any indication (at all) of questioning, criticizing, or even (heaven forbid) disagreeing with TOE is seen as utter and disdainful ignorance, complete weakness and deserving no mercy, but instead pouncing upon pouncing of self inflated righteousness.

Here in this debate, Charlie Sheen's version of winning is everything.

There seldom is any rational to these "evolution is just not true no matter how much you say it is true" .
The reason being that most who make the claim simply are not arguing against evolution.
Instead they are arguing against some bizarre concept they claim is evolution and are not the least bit interested in the truth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

There seldom is any rational to these "evolution is just not true no matter how much you say it is true" .
The reason being that most who make the claim simply are not arguing against evolution.
Instead they are arguing against some bizarre concept they claim is evolution and are not the least bit interested in the truth.

I Agree......

 

[Acim]

There seldom is any rational to these "evolution is just not true no matter how much you say it is true" .
The reason being that most who make the claim simply are not arguing against evolution.
Instead they are arguing against some bizarre concept they claim is evolution and are not the least bit interested in the truth.

I also agree.

Yet, I see this on religious side much of the time as well.

And like most debates, the people who are meeting at the level where the error is being made, pretty much just perpetuate the error. I realize from one's own bias, this will be denied.

But if someone such as rusra02 makes claim that "it is not observable fact" and response is pretty much, "evolution is observable fact," it is pretty much perpetuating the error, or at very least not advancing anything. Like if someone says to me, "God is made up illusion," and I say, "God is not made up illusion," how much have I actually overcome the error? Even a teeny tiny bit?

However, on this issue, I've started to go through the material that is there to educate one and all. So, it can't be said (so easily) that I am arguing against some bizarre concept I claim is evolution; and instead am scrutinizing the material. To which I've realized after going through about 10 pages, with scrutiny of the material is enough to generate lots of counter assertions. So, even going through the material in a highly scrutinized way seems not sufficient for many. Unless...

...one goes through material, essentially says, 'ah, now I think I get it. With this I can agree and would like to advance this field of study further. But I have just a few questions for clarification...'

If that is the attitude brought into any field of study (and I do mean any), those around who are truly there to help, will earnestly do so. But start off on the foot that says, "this is all hogwash, and is all pointless drivel that I shall expose constantly for the stupidity that I think it is," and regardless of the field of study, there will be people pouncing on you left and right, especially if you are outnumbered and 'defenders' are under bizarre impression that truth is in need of some human made, emotionally based, defense.