The Hypocrisy of Evolution

[Devin]

Hello all,
For the evolutionists in this discussion, I have a question for you; how did sex originate? And let Albert Einstein's quote shape your answer "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.'
Respectfully,
Devin

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello all,
For the evolutionists in this discussion, I have a question for you; how did sex originate? And let Albert Einstein's quote shape your answer "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.'
Respectfully,
Devin

That isn't from Albert Einstein. That was Richard Feynman, and that's also incredibly butchered. The actual quote is as follows;

If you can't explain something to a first-year grad-student, you don't understand it yourself.

 

[viole]

That isn't from Albert Einstein. That was Richard Feynman, and that's also incredibly butchered. The actual quote is as follows;

If you can't explain something to a first-year grad-student, you don't understand it yourself.

Which also sets some minimal requirements about the education of the counterpart. Requirements which might be far from being obviously fulfilled

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no denying that Evolution is a concept that is a widely held scientific principle. Schools all over the world have been teaching it for decades. It has been ingrained into the scientific mind as a universal truth. Yet, there is a distinct lack in archeological evidence of natural selection. Indeed, the fossil record shows a fragmented view, at best. It seems that Evolution has been replaced with creationism in the classrooms because it fits the scientific mold better. Seemingly, the goal of the scientific community has been to completely remove God from the picture and/or debunk any involvement of intelligent design. It seems a bit strange to me that there appears to be less empirical evidence of Evolution than there is of intelligent design. Have said all this, I would like to see what is everyone's view on the subject. Please, let's not have any ridiculing statements, but as much factual information and/or evidence as is relevant.

Debunking God was also an explicit goal of classical physics, static/eternal steady state universes, Big Crunch, Multiverses and M theory-
it's never had a great track record of being backed up by evidence. this academic preference for a particular conclusion has served to sidetrack, delay scientific progress on one hand, on the other it has helped underscore the need for creative intelligence to explain what is otherwise inexplicable by chance alone.

 

[Devin]

That isn't from Albert Einstein. That was Richard Feynman, and that's also incredibly butchered. The actual quote is as follows;

If you can't explain something to a first-year grad-student, you don't understand it yourself.

Hello Nietzsche,
I thank you for the correction, while searching for the origin of the quote, I found a lot of debate in regards to the author. So, apologies for finding a faulty source .
However, the principle of the 'butchered' statement is still noteworthy, and my original question still remains.
Respectfully,
Devin

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello all,
For the evolutionists in this discussion, I have a question for you; how did sex originate? And let Albert Einstein's quote shape your answer "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.'
Respectfully,
Devin

Simplest answer: Read this Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello Nietzsche,
I thank you for the correction, while searching for the origin of the quote, I found a lot of debate in regards to the author. So, apologies for finding a faulty source .
However, the principle of the 'butchered' statement is still noteworthy, and my original question still remains.
Respectfully,
Devin

I am going to assume that you're not a first-year grad student in Biology?

 

[Devin]

I am going to assume that you're not a first-year grad student in Biology?

Hello,
Your assumption would be correct...

 

[Devin]

Simplest answer: Read this Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello,
I respect your reply, however, wikipedia can hardly be taken seriously as an authoritative source.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello,
Your assumption would be correct...

Right. So how do you expect me to explain it to you? You do not have an education in biology, and the evolution is sex is a pretty detailed & complex series of events that requires a certain level of knowledge or experience in that field.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
I respect your reply, however, wikipedia can hardly be taken seriously as an authoritative source.

Then you can go to the references they have in those paragraphs.
Just pick one of these:
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most of them are primary sources even though Wiki is a second-hand and mostly just summarizes the information.

--edit

Here's a problem with your response. You're asking people here that you don't know. You don't know our backgrounds or if we have credentials in the field you're asking about. So if I'd give you an answer, would you accept it? Probably not. Now, Wikipedia is edited by many people in the fields they work in, so the information I linked to on Wiki is more accurate than I could ever give you. So if you don't trust wiki, then why do you ask people here? You don't like the goose, so why would you like the gander?

Would Natural History Museum in UK's summary be more trustworthy to you?
Sex and evolution | Natural History Museum

The question here is rather, how short answer do you really want? Do you want a short, summarized answer that simply put the concepts in light without going in depth, or do you want 50,000 pages of scientific research with a multitude of latin words and math? I mean, you're asking for a simple answer, get it, and then reject it for being too simple. I hope you're not expecting people to write a research report for you.

Wikipedia does give you an overview, and for deeper studies, you can look at the links to the primary sources. Wikipedia isn't accepted in school essays and such because of its content changing and there's no guarantee for its quality, but everyone recognizes that 99% of the time, Wiki gets it fairly close, as close as any encyclopedia would.

Put it this way. Do you know how Encyclopedias are made, the printed ones? By people writing articles, and peer reviewed by a board. Wiki works in a similar fashion, except that there are so many more providing and contributing the information and knowledge there. If you want a simple and short answer, Wiki is a very good place to go to.

 

[Devin]

Right. So how do you expect me to explain it to you? You do not have an education in biology, and the evolution is sex is a pretty detailed & complex series of events that requires a certain level of knowledge or experience in that field.

Hello,
So, your claim is 'it is too vast a topic to sum up simply,' please correct if I am wrong. But if this is so, I have a question out of concern, if the concept of evolution is so logical and obvious, then why does it require so much explanation, and only the 'most brilliant scientists' (exaggeration intended) can fully understand it? Whereas the opposing view, God created everything, is easily explained, and understood and it only took 3 words.

 

[Devin]

Then you can go to the references they have in those paragraphs.
Just pick one of these:
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most of them are primary sources even though Wiki is a second-hand and mostly just summarizes the information.

--edit

Here's a problem with your response. You're asking people here that you don't know. You don't know our backgrounds or if we have credentials in the field you're asking about. So if I'd give you an answer, would you accept it? Probably not. Now, Wikipedia is edited by many people in the fields they work in, so the information I linked to on Wiki is more accurate than I could ever give you. So if you don't trust wiki, then why do you ask people here? You don't like the goose, so why would you like the gander?

Would Natural History Museum in UK's summary be more trustworthy to you?
Sex and evolution | Natural History Museum

The question here is rather, how short answer do you really want? Do you want a short, summarized answer that simply put the concepts in light without going in depth, or do you want 50,000 pages of scientific research with a multitude of latin words and math? I mean, you're asking for a simple answer, get it, and then reject it for being too simple. I hope you're not expecting people to write a research report for you.

Wikipedia does give you an overview, and for deeper studies, you can look at the links to the primary sources. Wikipedia isn't accepted in school essays and such because of its content changing and there's no guarantee for its quality, but everyone recognizes that 99% of the time, Wiki gets it fairly close, as close as any encyclopedia would.

Put it this way. Do you know how Encyclopedias are made, the printed ones? By people writing articles, and peer reviewed by a board. Wiki works in a similar fashion, except that there are so many more providing and contributing the information and knowledge there. If you want a simple and short answer, Wiki is a very good place to go to.

Hello again,
Kind of working backwards, apologies, but for reference, are you an Atheist?
Respectfully

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello again,
Kind of working backwards, apologies, but for reference, are you an Atheist?
Respectfully

Yes and no.

I'm a naturalistic pantheist, transtheist, and I do sympathize strongly with atheism, more than theism. I don't believe in a conscious, sentient entity that handcrafted this world. I do this world to be wonderful enough that it "creates" as part of its nature. The nature of nature is that it can produce life and consciousness.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
So, your claim is 'it is too vast a topic to sum up simply,' please correct if I am wrong. But if this is so, I have a question out of concern, if the concept of evolution is so logical and obvious, then why does it require so much explanation, and only the 'most brilliant scientists' (exaggeration intended) can fully understand it? Whereas the opposing view, God created everything, is easily explained, and understood and it only took 3 words.

An explanation is only an explanation if it explains. Goddidit isn't an explanation. It's just a claim or statement. To find the simplest explanation for something you have to research and figure out if it really is an explanation or not.

If we're just going by whatever-goes fashion of explanations, I can give you a shorter one: blurgh. That's only one word. Therefore, my explanation of blurgh is the correct one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blurgh is capitalized!

 

[Devin]

Yes and no.

I'm a naturalistic pantheist, transtheist, and I do sympathize strongly with atheism, more than theism. I don't believe in a conscious, sentient entity that handcrafted this world. I do this world to be wonderful enough that it "creates" as part of its nature. The nature of nature is that it can produce life and consciousness.

Hello,
What is meant by 'create?'

 

[Ouroboros]

Blurgh is capitalized!

Dang. I forgot. Yes, of course it's capitalized. Also, it can make money, so it's capitalized in dual sense.

 

[Ouroboros]

Hello,
What is meant by 'create?'

By putting it inside quotes is to indicate that it's not meant to be taken literally as really a person creating. The problem with language is that sometimes there are words that are missing to express ideas. For instance, our language is based on the idea that everything that comes into being is made by something or someone, by an actor, which means saying "created" immediately infers the idea of a conscious actor creating. By putting it inside quotes is to hint to the reader that there's something in the connotation that has to be read and understood slightly different. In this case, reading "created" is to read more like "produced by" without the meaning of an conscious actor.

Or, you can read it this way. I consider the universe to be God, so sure, "God did it" works for me in that sense. God, the universe, created or produced life. But people get a bit confused over that because they want to separate God as a concept from reality. God to some people has to be an entity away and different from the natural and the world.

 

[Devin]

An explanation is only an explanation if it explains. Goddidit isn't an explanation. It's just a claim or statement. To find the simplest explanation for something you have to research and figure out if it really is an explanation or not.

If we're just going by whatever-goes fashion of explanations, I can give you a shorter one: blurgh. That's only one word. Therefore, my explanation of blurgh is the correct one.

Hello,
Unfortunately, you missed my point in regards to '3 words.' It has nothing to do with length, but everything to do with simplicity. Long 'things' can be simple and short 'things' can be extremely complicated.
Now, in regards to your statement of 'an explanation is only and explanation…' really does not make sense. To explain something, is simply to describe something with relevant details/facts. Now, in the context of the universe, accurately explaining the origin, i.e describing it, does simply factor down to, God created it.