Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)

Page 5 of 14 First ... 34567 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Oddly enough it seems to function intelligently, so it can also lend credence to the ID theory.
    While I'm not sure about that statement it does illustrate one of the key points about evolution claims that gets on my nerves. Evidence consistent with a theory doesn't prove a theory. For example, suppose an asteroid with some weird radiation is orbiting the sun. It comes around here at regular intervals, causes a mass extinction of most like, and radiation mutates DNA and gives rise to a boatload of mutants, many of which shortlived but some of which survive over time and adapt.

    A 'theory' like that, or slightly modified, could be just as consistent with the evidence presented in favor of evolution, and it could conceivably make macro evolution unecessary, or make it clear that it's dependent on an outside influence and doesn't arise from the mere nature of life.

    I just don't know what's wrong with saying there's a great empirical case for macro evolution and that research is proceeding apace to discover how it happens. Or in more layman terms saying based on the evidence we're very certain some process of evolution takes place, and right now the details are being discovered and worked out.

    That would seem to be a hell of a lot more honest and accurate than stating evolution is proven as close to 100% as anything can be. Then when pressed you uncover the fact that no one knows how it happens. Proven, but no idea how it works... Sounds so solid. And I've yet to see any possible way to falsify the theory presented.

    People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.


  2. People have become way too invested with this issue to make an objective look at it possible. Creationists think everyone who believes evolution also believes in a Godless, mechanistic and reducable world. Darwinists attack anyone who expresses doubt about their pet theory as a religious lunatic intent on keeping the world in the dark ages.[/quote]

    Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right? I can't remember a third view point. The darwinist have a theory. The theory does not claim to know the begining of life. or the end of life. the evolutionary theory just shows a logical progression from point "A" in the past to point "B" in the present. The creationist claim both a knowledge of the beginning of life and also lay claim to the end( heaven or hell ). While claiming that all in between is just a test. This seems a little presumptuous to me.
    •   
       


  3. Well, Thems the choices right?, gotta pick one right? It is a two sided argument right?
    No. It's been framed as such, but it isn't. For one, a belief in God doesn't preclude accepting evolution. To say otherwise is to deny God the power to design evolution. Likewise, accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean someone has to accept a reductionist view of the universe. But, because the debate has been framed as being the rational against the lunatic, or the devout against the heathen depending on the fanatic you talk to, those are often the only two choices that are seen or presented.

  4. The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

    http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

    Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    The problem of DNA will never be overcome by evolutionists.

    http://www.evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10a.htm

    Moreover, not one reasonable assertion has been proffered to explain the origins of life from non-life. The very first step in the theory of evolution is a leap of faith.
    Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?

    "
    All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—all made itself out of nothing way back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
    Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).
    That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair, and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc."



    Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

    That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.
    •   
       

  6. incomming!... fire in the hole( in your head )!


    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Bud, don't tell me you're going to take anything that guy says seriously. Did you read his "summary" of evolution?




    Absolutely laughable and obviously designed to sway the uninformed reader away from believing that evolution takes place.


    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.

    That description sounds as ridiculous as the Adam and Eve theory.
    Look out its a smart bomb!!! Obfusification of the facts is one of the favored strategies of the anti-evolutionists. The art of confusing your opponent with more facts. The facts are deliberately vague with multiple ending scenarios. Kind of like a maze for your mind, It is a trap for you free will. confuse and conquer! Yikes, I just scared myseilf.( hahaha)

  7. You sure lightning doesn't play a part in your theory?

    And you're evading anyway.

  8. Evading what?

    There was no good rebuttal to evolution in the entire article.

    Proteins developed on top of the sea. During that time the atmosphere was 20% CO2, therefore much heavier, and the ocean was 300degrees centigrade. This is where the random mixing of molecules took place for billion of years before there was any sort of abundance of important molecules, like proteins, etc.

    Nothing about lightning and during that time, there wasn't land anyway. So, the author is either a liar or uneducated.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    There was no lightning, nothing was instant, lol.
    I do remember hearing of an experiment a long time ago where a couple scientists blasted an imitation of primordial soup with an electric charge. Supposedly little spheres of protein formed and, even though they weren't cells, started dividing into smaller versions of themselves. Don't quote me on that, it was a long time ago I heard that claim.

    And however ridiculous the author's explanation, once again the point comes up that it may just be impossible for something as complex and varied as current life on this planet to merely be the product of random mutation and chance. Saying it happened therefore it must be possible assumes the answer and begs the question. Once again, the lack of a mechanism is apparent. And that missing piece, at least in my personal opinion, puts evolution significantly further from the 99.999999...% certainty you claim.

  10. The lightning comes in when scientists attempt to conjure the initial energy that started the spark of life. You should go back and give your theory another look because you're missing some fundamental information.

    And I said you're evading because you're evading every other point I've made this entire thread, along with the remaining bulk of that one article.

  11. When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:
    There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirt and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
    Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that cells can and must do (see the chapter The Cell for a glimpse into those many functions).

    There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

    The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.

  12. Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  13. I'm not bulking, I just like the pic hahaha Its so classic

  14. Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    Hey kwyck, off topic but I am cutting now. Can you take the burger off the avatar, LOL.
    Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.

  15. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    When I was referencing the lightning it was in regards to this:

    There was no lightning instantly creating what the author describes.

    The process was long and drawn out, nothing was instant.
    That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

    Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by CDB
    Christ, I just noticed that. I'm getting constipated just looking at that thing.

    Whats with the helmit in that pic?

  17. Quote Originally Posted by spatch
    Whats with the helmit in that pic?
    If you were going to attack a burger that big, you'd need one. And a cup, and a big ass dose of a good **** pill.

  18. Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  19. Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    That's what I mean by evading. You're skirting the crux of this debate by displaying your disapproval of his humorous definition of your theory rather than addressing the numerous problems he pinpoints. In a sense, you're argumentum ad hominem.

    Moreover, many crucial points in the process of evolution indeed must have occurred instantly. Irreducible Complexity addresses many of these fatal flaws.
    Dude, I'm not even sure what freggin' point you're trying to make. And irreducible complexity has a lot more to do with the formation of a first cell that it does with evolution.

    Argumentum ad hominem, eh? No, that would be saying something like english classes aren't a good replacement for biology classes when you get into a debate regarding biology and evolution. I doubt you even knew what irreducible complexity, as an anti-spontaneous life theory, was before a few google searches ago.

    You posted a link saying that evolutionists have a problem trying to prove evolution because of DNA and you take the information from a creationist website that has obviously misleading material on it.

    I'm not evading anything because you're not making a point regarding evolution.

    And, I've addressed this "leap of faith" required for buying into the beginnings of life, but the thing is, there is a 99.9..9% chance that evolution is taking place in the sense that we were randomly birthed and that we've evolved from simple bacteria, so I'll take the 0.0...1% leap of faith. But again, not a whole lot to do with evolution.

    I've also said that its entirely possible that there is some sort of creator out there and that I personally do believe there is something out there, but he sure as hell didn't make the earth in 7 days nor did he put adam and eve here.

    Go back and read my posts, I made an educational thread but the refusal to accept what all science indicates is the truth of our origins as far as 4billion years back isn't worth arguing over. Pretty much back to the first chemotrophic organism we can generate a consistent line of evolution...a 4 billion year line of evolution!

    If you want to read about all plausible theories of the origins of the first cell and of life, knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

    But, that's not what the thread was about.

    This thread is a thread of evolution, not abiogenesis. So, nothing is being evaded, you're running off the topic trying to invalidate evolution because of something that is really unrelated to it. The first cell isn't what we're talking about here and it wasn't the point of the thread is and the fact that we don't know how the first cells came to be, doesn't invalidate the fact that we've got a darn good idea of how we evolved from them and from our more recent ancestors.

    The point of the thread is that we've got a common ancestor with all life. And yes, we really are primates...sorry bud.

  20. I personally have not seen a single thread of evidence in any of these posts that support macro evolution let alone anything that would be considered 99.9% proof. All I have heard is circular reasoning begging the question. "We evolved so it must have happened and since we evolved we will interpret all data that is collected based upon that fact".

    Don't get me wrong, I am guilty of some of the same. I believe the guy who showed dominion over life and death by raising himself from the dead, witnessed by men who died for their beliefs and as posted earlier, very unlikely (or 99.9% proven) that a man would willingly die a terrible death for something he knew to be false let alone hundreds. He (Christ) believed in the literal interpretation of the scriptures. He believed in Adam & Eve and a 7 day creation. This belief does give me a bias and I can't help but following a certain path of reasoning while examining the facts.

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    I think kwyck was thinkin of:

    Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html

  21. An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.

    I think kwyck was thinkin of:

    Non sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow." In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if the conclusion does not follow from the premise. It should be stressed that in a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is a fallacy because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All logical fallacies are actually just specific types of non sequiturs. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition.[/quote]

    Gosh, If you take away these to tactics, not ony would we have no thread. We would have no bulliten board blogs...Image if there was a filter that eliminated non sequiturs and "ad Homs" The internet would be filled with boring facts about only the things that we all could agree that are proven by a widely acceptable criteria. I prefer illogical arguments for their entertainment value.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Pretty much back to the first chemotrophic organism we can generate a consistent line of evolution...a 4 billion year line of evolution!
    Could you point me to a good site or referrence with a decent write up of how this trace was done? I'm assuming we don't have DNA from 4 billion year old bacteria. All evidence I've seen is a fossil record which, while incomplete, suggest animals evolved over time, and phylogeny trees that are more guesswork than science. Once more, there's a good emperical case but until the mechanism(s) of evolution are found, and until someone explains how seriously complex organs evolve, as I said I think you're further from the 99.999% mark than you'd like to admit.

    No one in this thread has addressed the evolution of the eye. I've seen and read repeated claims that there's plenty of evidence for how the eye evolved, but haven't actually seen any presented as to how the ability to tell light from dark with a few specialized cells evolves to a modern human eye. Yes, the existence of varying forms of the eye in various species suggests it did evolve, but that's not evidence for evolution, it's merely observation consistent with it. That's the circular reasoning BP is talking about. The mechanism is what would serve as proof. It might even provide falsifiable predictions which could be investigated. And that would be the difference between evidence consistent with evolution and evidence that proves evolution.

    Someone has to explain how the various parts of at least one version of the modern eye evolved and then were incorporated into the larger organ that become the modern eye. Someone has to explain how a lens develops minus a retina to focus on. Say the retina or something similar developed first, probably more likey. How did the lens then develop, and the eyeball to keep it the proper distance from the lens? How did the muscles surrounding the lens develop to focus it? How about the cones and rods as was pointed out before? Mutation and natural selection isn't enough. The more complex organisms get the more likely it would seem any mutation would be either negligible or detrimental. I forgot who said it in a prior post, but a basic version of every single part of the modern eye would have had to come into existence through random mutation and be useful in some way minus the whole so it would be incorporated into the more primitive whole and kept through the process of natural selection until it could join with the other parts, also products of mutation, and eventually become the modern eye. That's a tall order, and not something that can be proven to 99.999% certainty by looking at old bones or bacteria in a petri dish. And, since so many species have some version of the modern eye it's obviously a development that happened a long, long time ago. Primitive versions of the eye are found in cambrian fossils. That's going from a few cells to a complex organ in a relatively short time span it seems.

    It would be nice instead of reading there's plenty of evidence for this type of evolution to see, perhaps, at least a proposed line of evolution that gives some plausible order for the development of the various parts of the eye and how, when and why they were incorprated. As of right now I'm the most irreligious person you'll every meet, despite what a nice set of tits might make me say occasionally, and I'm not convinced that random mutations and natural selection can take a single cell organism to a human being at the bus stop, no matter how long those processes have been in play.

    The point of the thread is that we've got a common ancestor with all life. And yes, we really are primates...sorry bud.
    Something I personally don't doubt in a general sense, but until the specifics are more ironed out I'm not buying the 99.999% certainty line. The support of science doesn't mean anything in the end. Most scientists are convinced one cycle of steroids will melt your liver. Doctors used to do cigarette commercials. I don't think science is as solid as most people suggest because the people needed to carry out the process of inquiry are very fallible.

    Before I buy the 99.999% certaintly line I want to know how macro evolution occurs. I want to know how speciation occurs. I want to see evidence as to how random mutation leads to complex organs that have parts that seem fairly useless if the system isn't in place as a whole to make use of them. I want to see one example of a beneficial mutation in a complex orangism. Not examples of detrimental mutations, not examples of swapped proteins in DNA that lead to no change whatsoever. Some guesses in a book as to how this all hapens that are mathematically workable do not constitute proof.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    Gosh, If you take away these to tactics, not ony would we have no thread. We would have no bulliten board blogs...Image if there was a filter that eliminated non sequiturs and "ad Homs" The internet would be filled with boring facts about only the things that we all could agree that are proven by a widely acceptable criteria. I prefer illogical arguments for their entertainment value.
    Excellent point.

    In the cyber environment much expression is lost in the text. Differing ideas or contradictions are often received as attacks or insults. In areas that require faith (faith in faith, faith in science) there can be a great divide between people of opposite or conflicting convictions.

    There has been some very very intelligent discussion here. Doing the right thing does not require being right. Be tolerant and kind to one another. I believe that is the right thing to do.

    Just my $0.02 and an attempt at earning my Moderator daily wages.
    I have no enemies. My friends intensely despise me.

  24. Kwyck:
    My point, in a round about way, is,
    The theory of evolution is in no way a proven fact and here are a bunch of reasons why. You may not agree with everything on the site I posted, but at least directly address the points he makes rather than arguing against him. He may have some information wrong in your eyes, but that doesn't preclude his making decent arguments against the various claims of evolutionary theory.

    And you saying we don't need to consider abiogenesis to prove evolution is akin to saying we don't need to consider how to build a car to have one.

  25. Quote Originally Posted by TheCrownedOne
    And you saying we don't need to consider abiogenesis to prove evolution is akin to saying we don't need to consider how to build a car to have one
    That's something I always found interesting too. You would think a complete theory of evolution would include the evolution of nonliving matter into living matter, but apparently not. That would seem to me to be a critical step and one that would likely give some serious clues as to how the rest of the process works on all levels as well. I understand the point that evolution deals with preexisting living systems, but those systems weren't always there and an explanation of how they came into being would seem to be necessary.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Not really a powerlifter but heres my max bench video.
    By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/Strongman
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 03:24 AM
  2. is something wrong with this site it says im not logged in but
    By Outside Backer in forum General Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-26-2005, 06:33 PM
  3. Not an Anabolic, but ?? about Clen vs ECA
    By Guido in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-01-2005, 06:14 PM
  4. Noobie here....well not really.
    By JTrans in forum General Chat
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-15-2004, 11:27 PM
  5. M1T not really working??
    By WannaGro in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-13-2004, 05:26 PM
Log in
Log in