Rejecting evolution with science...

[SaiyanZ]

No answer I see.


So with the intellect already in place it took >50,000 years to invent farming? That is ridiculous BS. Again there is no real history for before around 6,000 years ago. Cave paintings and stuff we don't fully understand isn't evidence of humanity existing for tens of thousands of years. Also there are many civilisations that made their living from fishing or hunting yet no history for before this time. I am not saying the Bible is more plausible. I am saying it fits in with it again confirming it an accurate account of history.

These are things that I thought would be obvious. Let me explain how the world works:

The key factor is that knowledge is built upon the the works of previous generations. In order for this knowledge to be passed from generation to generation there needs to be some kind of way to preserve the information. This was done by people developing languages in order to have a standard form of communication and also the development of writing and storing text. Without these things information would not have been passed down and we would still be living in the dark ages. Nobody would know how to farm without ever hearing of such a thing before. In the same way nobody today would be able to build a car or a CPU without looking at writings of people who have done it before.

So thus civilization is due to the development of a standard way to communicate and preserve information. Before the languages everyone was living isolated lives and basically starting scratch with each generation. People could only build upon the knowledge of their close circle of family and friends. The languages took time to develop and spread since standardization was not a quick and easy process. People generally would never venture far from where they were born since there was no means of transport 10000 years ago.

Think of it this way. Babies only know how to eat and drink when they're born. Without any communication skills they remain that way. No matter how much intellect we are born with, we can only do so much in our lives if we can't learn from other people's developments.

 

[HapticSimian]

/snip

Of course it should also go without saying that the smilodon-and-pestilence ridden early man had to contend with a life expectancy likely below 30, which would severely curtail any accumulation of knowledge.

 

[porchrat]

The concept you guys are discussing sounds like technological evolution.

 

[Swa]

His inability to persuade anyone that he's right only feeds into his paranoia.

You really think I am here to persuade YOU?

These are things that I thought would be obvious. Let me explain how the world works:

The key factor is that knowledge is built upon the the works of previous generations. In order for this knowledge to be passed from generation to generation there needs to be some kind of way to preserve the information. This was done by people developing languages in order to have a standard form of communication and also the development of writing and storing text. Without these things information would not have been passed down and we would still be living in the dark ages. Nobody would know how to farm without ever hearing of such a thing before. In the same way nobody today would be able to build a car or a CPU without looking at writings of people who have done it before.

So thus civilization is due to the development of a standard way to communicate and preserve information. Before the languages everyone was living isolated lives and basically starting scratch with each generation. People could only build upon the knowledge of their close circle of family and friends. The languages took time to develop and spread since standardization was not a quick and easy process. People generally would never venture far from where they were born since there was no means of transport 10000 years ago.

Think of it this way. Babies only know how to eat and drink when they're born. Without any communication skills they remain that way. No matter how much intellect we are born with, we can only do so much in our lives if we can't learn from other people's developments.

Let me explain a few things to you:

When languages started they developed rather quickly and we have thousands of them in only a few millennia. When a 1 year old child learns language they don't do it with their parents feeding them the meaning of every word. They hear the words and associate their meaning by picking up on the actions. They are able to do this so quickly through intellect.

We have a history of 6,000 years showing carts and sailing. People were not living isolated lives back then. From there we have a gradual development to what we have today but guess what no history for tens of thousands of years before that. Now what you want us to believe is that despite having this intellect that even a baby possesses for at least 45,000 years before this explosion of development people were content to live without a means to effectively communicate?

 

[AlmightyBender]

You really think I am here to persuade YOU?


Let me explain a few things to you:

When languages started they developed rather quickly and we have thousands of them in only a few millennia. When a 1 year old child learns language they don't do it with their parents feeding them the meaning of every word. They hear the words and associate their meaning by picking up on the actions. They are able to do this so quickly through intellect.

We have a history of 6,000 years showing carts and sailing. People were not living isolated lives back then. From there we have a gradual development to what we have today but guess what no history for tens of thousands of years before that. Now what you want us to believe is that despite having this intellect that even a baby possesses for at least 45,000 years before this explosion of development people were content to live without a means to effectively communicate?

I'm sure they could effectively communicate, but what about recording that? The reason that there is no history is because there was no writing, no written language. There was also the problem of what exactly you were supposed to write these things on and still be able to transport it in your nomadic lifestyle (no agriculture remember ). Stone tablets? Animal hides? Not a chance, way too heavy and bulky so even if you had writing what would the point be?

Then all of a sudden Egyptians start making basic paper scrolls and boom: recorded history starts. Also you are completely ignoring Eastern Asia where they started recording history long before the Western culture. Do they not count? Like I said you really should go visit your local library sometime.

 

[HapticSimian]

...

Then all of a sudden Egyptians start making basic paper scrolls and boom: recorded history starts. Also you are completely ignoring Eastern Asia where they started recording history long before the Western culture. Do they not count? Like I said you really should go visit your local library sometime.

Sumerians look on in confusion as God creates world.

 

[Ekstasis]

TBF, it's 2013 and my written communication still sucks

Nobodies understands me

 

[Splinter]

I highly doubt Swa is an empirex clone. Someone who doesn't have him on ignore see if you can get him to explicitly state that HIV causes AIDS and that HIV wasn't created by some group in the West.

I think he is. Empirex (Stu) is just (only just though ) clever enough to realise his past history of being banned from various sites means it is likely he will need a clone in order to continue propogating his nonsense. So he would likely create a number of concurrent clones to try and avoid detection when one profile is banned.

 

[Ekstasis]

As an African American, I think y'all should just chill out

I think what Swa is ultimately trying to convey is that Evolutionary science itself rejects evolution because much of it is not science but speculation based on what "we think we're seeing". The holes are everywhere from the BB and abiogenesis right into evolution.

I would also like to urge you to explain what evolution you are referring to - it's a very broad term. "Evolution is a fact" is not an argument, we know it is. However, evolution from a common ancestral cell into the abundance of life as we see around us is hypothetical. Science cannot test for that. "Overwhelming evidence" is an outright lie. It's more like overwhelming speculation.

 

[Ekstasis]

For the record, ID is also speculation based on what we see

 

[HapticSimian]

Yes, Ekstasis. We all know you're perfectly capable of just asserting ****, but that doesn't make any of it true.

Honestly, have you even bothered to look at the wiki article on evidence of common descent? I know you've been supplied the link a few times. And don't pull the standard painted-into-a-corner cop-out of wiki being unreliable... there are 161 references for you to follow at the bottom of the article.

As for ID... it's bunk, and it will remain bunk because its very premise is untestable. To assert that it is on equal footing with evolutionary theory is patently absurd, and indicative of deficient mental faculties. The only question you need to answer for yourself is whether you're satisfied with your mental deficiency being permanent - the information that'll fix it is out there if you'd care to look.

 

[porchrat]

For the record, ID is also speculation based on what we see

No it is speculation based on what you read in a holy book. I know you still read it with your eyes but it isn't really the same thing.

 

[Ekstasis]

Yes, Ekstasis. We all know you're perfectly capable of just asserting ****, but that doesn't make any of it true.

Honestly, have you even bothered to look at the wiki article on evidence of common descent? I know you've been supplied the link a few times. And don't pull the standard painted-into-a-corner cop-out of wiki being unreliable... there are 161 references for you to follow at the bottom of the article.

As for ID... it's bunk, and it will remain bunk because its very premise is untestable. To assert that it is on equal footing with evolutionary theory is patently absurd, and indicative of deficient mental faculties. The only question you need to answer for yourself is whether you're satisfied with your mental deficiency being permanent - the information that'll fix it is out there if you'd care to look.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. ID is not testable either, it uses inference as well as current science to make that inference. There's no way to insist scientifically that ID is testable in the same way common decent cannot be tested for.

On same grounds? I didn't suggest that. The work done so far on evolution is a wealth of data. ID is a baby and I'm afraid it will not grow much

 

[porchrat]

As an African American, I think y'all should just chill out

I think what Swa is ultimately trying to convey is that Evolutionary science itself rejects evolution because much of it is not science but speculation based on what "we think we're seeing". The holes are everywhere from the BB and abiogenesis right into evolution.

Are you high?

Evolutin is rejected because the Big Bang and abiogenesis have some holes in them?!? :wtf:

How many times does it need to be pointed out that those things have fsck all to do with evolution?!?!?!?! Even if neither of those happened it means sweet fsck all for evolution.

I would also like to urge you to explain what evolution you are referring to - it's a very broad term. "Evolution is a fact" is not an argument, we know it is. However, evolution from a common ancestral cell into the abundance of life as we see around us is hypothetical. Science cannot test for that. "Overwhelming evidence" is an outright lie. It's more like overwhelming speculation.

Evolution is simply change in populations from one generation to the next. That is fact. It is observed, like gravity.

There is overwhelming evidence. Instead of spending your time arguing that there isn't overwhelming evidence like some sort of ignorant loon go and read about the evidence we have managed to gather so far. It is fascinating.

 

[Unhappy1]

There's no way to insist scientifically that ID is testable in the same way common decent cannot be tested for.

Stop spewing nonsense , common descent is testable.

 

[Ekstasis]

Are you high?

Evolutin is rejected because the Big Bang and abiogenesis have some holes in them?!? :wtf:

How many times does it need to be pointed out that those things have fsck all to do with evolution?!?!?!?! Even if neither of those happened it means sweet fsck all for evolution.

I would also like to urge you to explain what evolution you are referring to - it's a very broad term. "Evolution is a fact" is not an argument, we know it is. However, evolution from a common ancestral cell into the abundance of life as we see around us is hypothetical. Science cannot test for that. "Overwhelming evidence" is an outright lie. It's more like overwhelming speculation.

Did you see that I've separated these terms? Did I indicate the BB and abiogenises had ANYTHING to do with evolution? For a clever dude you make stupid deductions stoeprot.

BB = the birth of the cosmos
abiogenises = the forming of the first life through inorganic matter as its building blocks
evolution = the development of all life from a common ancestor OR as I'd like to think.... "Darwins wet dream"

happy? now go eat your orange

 

[Ekstasis]

Stop spewing nonsense , common descent is testable.

yeah? prove it

 

[porchrat]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. ID is not testable either

The Theory of Evolution is testable and continues to be tested all the fscking time. Every new discover further tests it.

See this is why you shouldn't read these retarded creationist blogs. It makes you believe crazy things.

There's no way to insist scientifically that ID is testable in the same way common decent cannot be tested for.

You can test for common descent through genetics. If the genetics don't line up then common descent is falsified.Say for example if you found some life that doesn't use the nucleic acid system all life on this planet discovered so far uses. Unfortunately for you that hasn't happened yet.

On same grounds? I didn't suggest that. The work done so far on evolution is a wealth of data. ID is a baby and I'm afraid it will not grow much

It won't grow because it isn't science, it is religion ineffectually attempting to disguise itself as science.

 

[HapticSimian]

Sorry, I didn't make it clear. ID is not testable either, it uses inference as well as current science to make that inference. There's no way to insist scientifically that ID is testable in the same way common decent cannot be tested for.

On same grounds? I didn't suggest that. The work done so far on evolution is a wealth of data. ID is a baby and I'm afraid it will not grow much

So... no, you haven't bothered actually doing any research of your own. Thought as much.

Of course common descent can be tested for - organisms thought to be related would show signs of interrelatedness, on a scale from the genetic to the structural. This is borne out by evolutionary biology. What you, and others like you, fail to get is that what we see around us makes sense only either in the light of evolution, or of something like Last Thursdayism. As the latter is patently absurd, we focus on the former.

You seem to think that taking layman's pot shots at all of evolutionary theory will somehow sink it, but it is a field so vast and diverse that no single imagined discrepancy will do it any harm. It is accepted because it paints a coherent and comprehensive picture compatible with observation.

There's a difference between untested and untestable, one might argue that the origin of life is untested, but it isn't untestable in principle. Positing ID, however, fails at the first hurdle.

For bonus points, please explain the intelligence behind design rabbits such that they have to eat their own pooped out food again in order to properly digest it.

 

[porchrat]

Did you see that I've separated these terms? Did I indicate the BB and abiogenises had ANYTHING to do with evolution? For a clever dude you make stupid deductions stoeprot.

You claimed that because there are holes in BB and abiogenesis that means evolution is being tossed. That clearly explicitly says they have to do with one another. This is simple English dude. You are contradicting yourself here.

It is also total bullschit.

BB = the birth of the cosmos
abiogenises = the forming of the first life through inorganic matter as its building blocks
evolution = the development of all life from a common ancestor OR as I'd like to think.... "Darwins wet dream"

happy? now go eat your orange

and if abiogenesis and the BB are both utter schit and your deity magicked up the first unit of reproducible life then evolution can STILL HAPPEN AND DOESN'T NEED TO BE TOSSED. Happy? Go throw out whatever it is you are eating that makes you so incapable of comprehending something so simple.