100 Reasons Why Evolution Is Stupid (Part 1 of 11)

[Belz...]

2. When I was an atheist I was in the military during that time I tried Transcendental meditation using the Hindu method. It was true, but the scary part is that the Christian beliefs warns us not to do that, so they have some of the truth there is a soul.

I suspect you were an atheist for the wrong reasons. You obviously didn't come to that conclusion by using rational thought.

 

[Dancing David]

But many do claim it about abiogenesis and evolution and are nevertheless considered respectable trustworthy people.

Yeah well, it takes all kinds of nuts to make an omlette.

 

[Dancing David]

We have some of their capabilities we absorb some vitimans from sun light.

Um they synthesize sugars,we make vitamin D

 

[aggle-rithm]

Note to the uninitiated: Radrook is a Jehovah's Witness.

Well, that makes sense. Education is a Jehovah's Witness' worst enemy.

 

[edge]

I suspect you were an atheist for the wrong reasons. You obviously didn't come to that conclusion by using rational thought.

It allowed me to be a killer.

 

[Marduk]

It allowed me to be a killer.

lol, no, that was youth,
same for all of us

 

[edge]

Um they synthesize sugars,we make vitamin D

I stand corrected, we work similarly.

 

[edge]

lol, no, that was youth,
same for all of us

Yep... young and dumb and full of...

 

[edge]

I have to go paint now.

 

[Marduk]

Yep... young and dumb and full of...

Conditioned agression and firearms training

 

[kerikiwi]

I am still working on it and there’s a point where I go into science fiction and speculation.

And it seems that point is page one, paragraph one, sentence one.
(Unless, that sentence uses the template Hovind used to begin his PhD., in which case the point would occur in sentence two)

 

[RoboTimbo]

Now I'm confused by your conflicting answers. You say you believe in ID but you believe that it should be taught as a philosophy, not as science?

I guess in this way you could have all the aspects that are separate come together for discussions, The sciences that are involved with evolution Paleontology are the same ones that are used for lets say biblical archeology.
The evidence can only go so far back as proof in biblical archeology to Solomon and David at least so far.
Then there’s a big gap between the two.
Fossils go back to the beginning.

I find it all fasinating.

Radrook, would you comment on Edge's opinion that ID belongs in a Philosophy class and not in a Science class?

Also, do you believe that the Theory of Evolution should be taught in Science class in public schools?

 

[aggle-rithm]

It allowed me to be a killer.

Believing in God certainly doesn't stop anyone from being a killer. 9/11, anyone?

 

[SOdhner]

Believing in God certainly doesn't stop anyone from being a killer.

It certainly stops SOME people from killing, just not reliably in any particular religion.

 

[kerikiwi]

I suspect you were an atheist for the wrong reasons. You obviously didn't come to that conclusion by using rational thought.

I suspect he wasn't an atheist at all.

 

[jimbob]

I have posted similar before, but there is very strong evidence for intelligent design in some living organisms:

Alba the rabbit for example has some evidence. Namely the inserted DNA from another phylum, the DNA equivalent of "Rabbits in the Precambrian".

I also say that intelligently and competently designed systems have certain signatures that completely evolved systems lack.

as Detee has said, there are ways to determine whether something was competently designed.

Unlike Behe I can think of several features that are highly indicative of either an evolved system or one that has been competently designed.

1) Designers can correct their mistakes
Given that Behe accepts common descent of humans and chimps, why would the designer not fix the appendix so it didn't burst, once this " obviously not-so omniscient" designer noticed the first hominid case of appendicitis?

2) Designers can reuse aspects of their designs
There are several animals that have additional eyes (e.g Notostraca). Their "third-eye" is different to their two compound-eyes, which is perfectly consistent with an evolved system, where there is no "defined function" the system just does what it does. However most competent designers, particularly those competent enough to desing one type of eye, would simply reuse that eye design for any additional ones.

Similarly, convergent evolution, where many organisms in similar environments demonstrate similar traits, is further evidence against a designer acting like this. Why are there so many different plants that produce fruit? Why are there so many different parts of the flower that turn into fruit (either true-fruit, or false fruit)? This is easy to explain if they evolved separately, but hard if you posit a designer attempting different solutions, to the same problem.

3) Competent designers don't get something right, then get it wrong later without correcting it
The octopus-retina lacks many of the drawbacks of the mammalian retina, which came later (or the same time if you are a YEC, which Behe isn't). Any human with the intelligence to design an eye would also spot the flaw in the mammalian "design".

4)Evolved systems can only get "information" from their ancestors
If a traits evolved separately in different organisms, the genes that express these traits should have different sequences, whilst if they were designed, they could be quite likely to have the same genetic sequence. Should anyone find this, when there hasn't been lateral gene transfer, then this would require some explanation. But (as the world's entire news media hasn't trumpeted this discovery) this hasn't been found.

5) Evolved systems are quite likely to "throw away" traits that are no longer advantageous
Why are vestigial organs vestigial, and neither fully working nor non-existent, which would look more elegant. For example either Basilosaurus, or modern whales have the more aesthetic rear leg "solution". Why did Basilosaurus have vestigial legs?

I am sure there are more but that should show why I disagree with Behe's admission...ETA that one couldn't test for ID.

 

[temporalillusion]

Well, as I previously said, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I'm certainly not going to try to dissuade you in your choice of a world view. As Descartes pointed out, that
comes with the territory.
No problem.

Also known as the *lalalala* defense. You use the term world view because you decide what to accept and not to accept based on your world view, while I do not, I decide what to accept based on evidence and lack of evidence, so me accepting or rejecting ID isn't based on a world view, it's based on lack of scientific evidence and evidence that it is a theological and political tactic.

Yep! That's what it ostensibly claims.

That's what it has proven by its actions over centuries.

This reminds me of a fellow who was instruction another on how to do dental lab articulation work on the plaster bench. Nothing that the trainee did was Right. Finally, noticing the trainee's frustration the fellow smugly said. "It ain't right till I say it' right . So you see-you can't win!"

That analogy has nothing to do with what's being discussed here. The instructor wasn't giving the student conditions for success or instruction on how to get there. Science has very clearly defined conditions for what is and what is not a valid scientific theory.

As I previously said: evolution and ID are not mutually exclusive. So you are creating a straw-man here.

No I didn't I didn't say they are mutually exclusive in what you quoted.

Let's look:

The reason ID is rejected is not because evolution is considered unassailable, it's because ID doesn't even try to assail evolution.. ID is a dogmatic attempt by religious groups to get religion into the science classroom by creating something that sounds like science.

ID has lots of websites, YouTube videos, etc, but no actual science.

Nope, nothing in there that says that.

Hey look, a straw straw-man!

It's precisely because I di understand evolution that I reject it.

I spent days trying to get you to say how many mutations you thought were between your parents and you and you didn't/wouldn't answer, and this was because you said something with respect to most mutations being negative. So no, your writings here indicate that you do not understand evolution.

You may understand what you've been told is evolution, but creationists (like the one that's the topic of the OP) go out of their way to misrepresent (lie?) evolution to their followers.

But if you understand evolution, lets hear what you consider the three strongest things about evolution (could be aspects of the theory, lines of evidence, confirmed predictions, whatever), and why you object to them.

Anyway, I do accept natural selection and mutational changes up to a point. However, I see absolutely no reason to assume that such a process ultimately turned animals into people.

So you admit things evolve but then you say they just magically stop evolving.

As I said before, you believe 1+1=2, but not 1+1+1=3. But unless you have a reason why 1+1+1 doesn't equal three, unless you have a reason why changes cannot add up past a certain point, then you are guilty of all that illogical reasoning that you are talking about.

Understanding of science was required for graduation in my field.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess some kind of engineering? Am I right?

There you go again Jimmy! So now the scientists who disagree with the evolution theory or with abiogebesis are ignorant of science? LOL That argument doesn't fly. It hobbles.

I didn't say that at all. Let's look what I actually said:

When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant.

But anyone who knows science will instantly get a big warning alarm.

Science isn't about testimony or opinions of qualified scientists!! It's about what you can support with evidence.

I said scientists who disagree with ANY theory without any support or evidence.

I said you are ignorant of science because you wrote the sentence "When confronted with testimony or opinions of qualified scientists who hold an opposite view I proclaim them to be ignorant." with a straight face. Scientist who hold an opposing view are obviously not viewed as ignorant, otherwise science would never change, and science changes all the time. "Scientists" who hold an opposing view based on nothing but wishful thinking are ignorant of science.

Never said it was or is.

And yet you thought a scientist having a different opinion by itself held merit. A scientist having a different opinion has no merit, a different opinion with evidence has merit.

I keep repeating to no apparent avail is that my belief in anb ID is based on logic. I don't see how I can be any clearer than that. Do you?

It's no avail because there are those of us who know what ID has said, and we know it's not scientific in nature. So you can think your belief is based on logic, but it isn't. I am completely willing to change my mind on evolution and intelligent design, and I know exactly what kinds of things would disprove evolution to me. Can you say the same thing? Are you completely willing to be convinced of evolution?

And it's to no avail so far because you say it, but you don't support it. That's the difference so far.. almost everyone here who accepts evolution (for example) has been completely willing to back up their position with facts and observations and predictions and explanations. But you haven't backed up your belief in ID, you just proclaim it and posted some videos.

But there always is something support it. Otherwise it wouldn't qualify as a theory would it? If indeed

Yes "If indeed", you gave an example and I gave how you would be able to tell the difference between a crackpot theory and a real one. Because the kind of behaviour you described is very typical of crackpots.

?????????????

Don't give me question marks, you wrote the sentence not me. If you don't understand what you wrote go back and read it.

Never said it didn't.

Then what is the whole point of your fake example of a scientist being dogmatic? You just want to tell everyone that you are against dogmatism but you agree that science isn't dogmatic?

BTW
Moving on and backing up several steps or erasing previous steps and then moving on to back up some more. That's why scientific dogmatism's illogical.

Great, so you say again you think dogmatism from science is illogical. Agan why then do you give an example of a dogmatic scientist and say you don't like dogmatism, then when I say how science has proven it changes you say "Never said it didn't"?

Are you are are you not accusing science of being dogmatic?



Let's make this simpler. Science changes (which you agree with both in principle and in fact), therefore it cannot be dogmatic.

Don't need to. Have logic.

So you say, but you haven't presented that logic, so your position boils down to "I'm right because I say I'm right and you say you're wrong".

Well, that's what the prevailing attitude on this forum conveys, an unassailable certainty based on what evolutionist atheist scientists has told them.

So I take it you don't have any evidence to support what you said then?

It just seems that way to you because you are bringing a position built on sand constructed of smoke and mirrors (ID) that doesn't even have a rock to stand on from which to assail.

And I said scientists, then you started talking about people here.

Or are you people changing hats as convenience demands?

"You people"...

You're talking with individual people, not "you people". I would expect that you would dislike it if someone said "you Christians", how about giving other people the same courtesy.

 

[technoextreme]

Go ahead and try to bend one then get back to me.
Try on one that's about 6 inches or 7 inches long, you can even step on it when you try.
See how tough it is.

I know how you broke it. Its quite simple. If you repeatedly stress something along a single axis repeatedly it will start yeilding like butter. Its the same reason why if you take solid copper wire and start moving it back and forth it will break. I think its called cold working.

 

[tsig]

'

Now we are getting into the metaphysical where things can become very complex indeed-both for science, religion as well as logic which ultimately depend on sense impressions in which to base their conclusions. Under this scenario, unfortunately for all involved, NOTHING can be conclusively proven as ultimately real in the fullest sense[no pun intended] of the word. So it is really counterproductive to lead the discussion in this direction since it results in a logical Sstalemate for all involved. But if you insist, then well-OK.

''

Ah but you brought in the metaphysical which automatically disqualifies all your scientific data as possible mere illusion as well.




Again! Did I say that it is verifiable via science? This s becoming a bit tiresome and useless. Are you really reading what I write?

As I previously pointed out and as any first year student of logic knows,
there are truths independent of collaboration via the scientific method. That's basic concept of cogent reasoning with which most sophomore liberal arts students as well as Natural science students [if they have paid attention]are familiar with.

Perhaps this discussion should be terminated since I don't particularly enjoy having what I say ignored or twisted into something else. Thanks. Let's just agree to disagree.

And these truths would be....?

 

[Dancing David]

I stand corrected, we work similarly.

Not really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroplast

Photosynthesis takes place on the thylakoid membrane; as in mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, it involves the coupling of cross-membrane fluxes with biosynthesis via the dissipation of a proton electrochemical gradient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Production_in_the_skin
Synthesis of Vitamin D

Cholecalciferol is produced photochemically in the skin from 7-dehydrocholesterol; 7-dehydrocholesterol is produced in relatively large quantities in the skin of most vertebrate animals, including humans.[11]