Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[DJ...]

This was expected..Mr DJ, ToE has already been accepted by the scientific world.

You seem to think that science and scientists exist in this cartoon world of interconnectedness and are constantly working on the same things to further push their own agenda. You simply couldn't be further from the truth. Even if you tried. Do you even know what falsifiability means?

 

[Ekstasis]

DJ, here's one person who might disagree with the majority.

Now you gonna dig up some article about him being an alcoholic at some stage, or he eats cats as part of his believe system ..or what the heck ever

 

[Ekstasis]

Oh yes, click the "download the List" button on that homepage. You'll see a long list of morons with absolutely no credentials whatsoever that are sceptical about all this hogwash

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

This was expected..Mr DJ, ToE has already been accepted by the scientific world. Do you think they will publish any counter findings?? Don't be naive. It has been so well received that there is NO contest. "Off the record" scientists do have counter arguments. They might be in the minority, but they're there

You really do think it's a conspiracy don't you? This baffles my brain. Just a few months ago physicists brought new evidence to the table that took on the Einstein and challenged the very fundamentals of physics. Even though this data turned out to be flawed they didn't just sweep their findings under the rug. Or is this also a conspiracy created to debunk the other conspiracy?

 

[Ekstasis]

You really do think it's a conspiracy don't you? This baffles my brain. Just a few months ago physicists brought new evidence to the table that took on the Einstein and challenged the very fundamentals of physics. Even though this data turned out to be flawed they didn't just sweep their findings under the rug. Or is this also a conspiracy created to debunk the other conspiracy?

Hardly as big a deal as Evolution. Supported by the media, the education system etc...Will never happen

 

[DJ...]

DJ, here's one person who might disagree with the majority.

Now you gonna dig up some article about him being an alcoholic at some stage, or he eats cats as part of his believe system ..or what the heck ever

This has been posted umpteen times here. We have the full etymology of this list. From the date it was posted, to the subsequent days when scientists found their names on the list and began frantically trying to have them removed after realising they had been duped, or simply lied to by the Discovery Institute. To the analysis of the names, only to realise that the scientists questioning it are involved in incredible biological endeavours like "do trees have feelings" and the like.

Here is a link to the responses to this nonsense document - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Responses

Tons of links to go visit there...

 

[DJ...]

Hardly as big a deal as Evolution. Supported by the media, the education system etc...Will never happen

WHAT?! Firstly, are you saying that scientists in this conspiracy (why haven't any of these dissenting scientists blown the lid on this global conspiracy involving millions of people?) have a scale by which they determine whether or not something is worthy of bullschitting? Are you insane or are you now just having a laugh for the sake of it?

More than just that, the speed of light is a massive deal. Huge deal. In itself, it requires no creator and therefore shares a similarity with evolution. The one similarity that you lot ever bring up as reason to discredit evolution. Your argument therefore makes absolutely no sense. The fact that you do not realise the importance of e=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] to us all, highlights exactly how little you know about the subject you are attempting to debate...

 

[Ekstasis]

This has been posted umpteen times here. We have the full etymology of this list. From the date it was posted, to the subsequent days when scientists found their names on the list and began frantically trying to have them removed after realising they had been duped, or simply lied to by the Discovery Institute. To the analysis of the names, only to realise that the scientists questioning it are involved in incredible biological endeavours like "do trees have feelings" and the like.

Here is a link to the responses to this nonsense document - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism#Responses

Tons of links to go visit there...

From Wiki..hahaha. They're part of it.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

From Wiki..hahaha. They're part of it.

And you trust the Discovery Institute? An organization run by creationists.

 

[RiaX]

You're generalizing. What is logical for some is not logical for others.

Logic is a point of view lad, if it cannot be objectively proven in a lab then it doesnt exist in science. When I say lab you know what I mean so dont get all smartass on me.

Hilter thought it was logical to kill people? doesnt mean its right. Though one could argue hitler aided us to greater peace :O .... perhaps

 

[DJ...]

From Wiki..hahaha. They're part of it.

Wikipedia are a part of this global conspiracy by scientists to keep the truth about god from the masses?

How is anyone ever supposed to take you seriously after this sort of thing? You are aware that wikipedia is driven by content derived from you and I. Not some global organisation who determine what to put in where and when. How can you be this bat-schit crazy? Is it that you have to get this crazy to perform the mental gymnastics required to continue believing the schit you believe? Or is this just a case of you believing absolutely anything that someone claims, as long as it backs up your belief?

 

[RiaX]

DJ, here's one person who might disagree with the majority.

Now you gonna dig up some article about him being an alcoholic at some stage, or he eats cats as part of his believe system ..or what the heck ever

I believe your site is full of BS sir. Immediately you can see the person running it or the organisation running it has no idea what evolutions is about. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. Thats what people dont understand, its a process that governs that more advanced and stronger lifeforms survive and dominate the heirachy. Look at todays world, Man is the strongest and most advanced creature on earth. yes you can argue a lion will kill a man, but you cant suddenly take away man's tools. A lion vs a man with a shotgun and the lion has no chance.

Evolution's driving force is natural selection. Saying evolution is random its like saying gravity is magic (dont be hating I like my gravity analogies)

EDIT**

You must remember that evolutionary force is never constant either. Eventually evolutions will slow down for man, as it did for dinosaurs however by then man might not exist anymore. Humanity will die either by its own hand or by disease. The earth will spin much longer, and all the earth like planets in the universe will spin too, when mankind is gone the next dominant creature will rise. Thats how evolution works

@ DJ

becareful to use wikipedia as a source of information. That is not correct as i stated for swa it boils down to levels of information. Wikipedia is not a tertiary or secodary source of infromation therefore it cannot be used to prove/disprove anything. Its only good for giving information on a concept nothing more. We must be careful and follow the same rules we try to impose on others. If they cant use that source for proof then neither can we.

However that said to say its part of a conpriacy is ludicrous at best

 

[Swa]

Okay, quick questions.

If you believe that the diversity of life is not governed by the processes of Evolution, how far off do you think the current information is from what you think the actual facts may be?

Even if you think that some aspects of evolutionary theory have it wrong, do you really think the truth would be that far away from the information we already have?

When you have a large variety of anything it is easy to group it according to similarities. That has been proven by children with toys. It does not logically follow that everything must have a common origin then. I think what is expected is that life if created must be very limited and unchanging. It's illogical to expect that adaptations don't occur but this is then taken as evolution without limitations. In essence it's impossible to say how right or wrong it is.

The problem with the theory is that it is what was described as a theory that explains everything explains nothing. Mutations happen or they don't. Adaptation takes place or it doesn't. Traits are either selected or not - if they are we just call them beneficial. It doesn't make any worthwhile predictions explaining why it's been useless in medicine and is therefor not testable either. When Popper was asked what would falsify it he had to think hard and came up with the precambrian bunny but I can make a prediction now that even if it was found they would just make it fit the mold and change the theory accordingly.

You seem to think that science and scientists exist in this cartoon world of interconnectedness and are constantly working on the same things to further push their own agenda. You simply couldn't be further from the truth. Even if you tried. Do you even know what falsifiability means?

That's because they do. But as has been pointed out many don't and you will find some reason to launch an ad hominem attack against them. Stop with this conspiracy claptrap. Where everyone suffers from the same delusions you don't need a conspiracy and you only pull this card where your argument fails as is the case here, just like the racist card.

WHAT?! Firstly, are you saying that scientists in this conspiracy (why haven't any of these dissenting scientists blown the lid on this global conspiracy involving millions of people?) have a scale by which they determine whether or not something is worthy of bullschitting? Are you insane or are you now just having a laugh for the sake of it?

More than just that, the speed of light is a massive deal. Huge deal. In itself, it requires no creator and therefore shares a similarity with evolution. The one similarity that you lot ever bring up as reason to discredit evolution. Your argument therefore makes absolutely no sense. The fact that you do not realise the importance of e=mc[SUP]2[/SUP] to us all, highlights exactly how little you know about the subject you are attempting to debate...

Stop with this claptrap. The speed of light is no big deal. People would rather wish this limitation away so we can expect results to the contrary to be reported. Evolution however is a massive big deal. This new age atheist bull**** which even Ruse despises thinks that science can disprove God. Let's get to the bottom of this once and for all. Evolution poses no problem for me but it does for you and millions of others because what do you have when you don't have evolution? Oh that's right Dawkins said aliens, but then he had to open his mouth later and say that the aliens must have evolved. So without evolution it's a major blow to YOUR religion.

I believe your site is full of BS sir. Immediately you can see the person running it or the organisation running it has no idea what evolutions is about. EVOLUTION IS NOT RANDOM. Thats what people dont understand, its a process that governs that more advanced and stronger lifeforms survive and dominate the heirachy. Look at todays world, Man is the strongest and most advanced creature on earth. yes you can argue a lion will kill a man, but you cant suddenly take away man's tools. A lion vs a man with a shotgun and the lion has no chance.

Evolution's driving force is natural selection. Saying evolution is random its like saying gravity is magic (dont be hating I like my gravity analogies)

EDIT**

You must remember that evolutionary force is never constant either. Eventually evolutions will slow down for man, as it did for dinosaurs however by then man might not exist anymore. Humanity will die either by its own hand or by disease. The earth will spin much longer, and all the earth like planets in the universe will spin too, when mankind is gone the next dominant creature will rise. Thats how evolution works

@ DJ

becareful to use wikipedia as a source of information. That is not correct as i stated for swa it boils down to levels of information. Wikipedia is not a tertiary or secodary source of infromation therefore it cannot be used to prove/disprove anything. Its only good for giving information on a concept nothing more. We must be careful and follow the same rules we try to impose on others. If they cant use that source for proof then neither can we.

However that said to say its part of a conpriacy is ludicrous at best

You believe that some random unpredictable "force" dictates what happens in this universe? Here is your problem with natural selection. Does it select what is beneficial or discard what isn't? If so why do selection at all and not just leave what is beneficial and what isn't? Darwin thought it was an actual force and incorrectly led him to then classify the appendix as useless and decreasing in size because of that. That's Lamarckism. The modern idea is that's it simply describes what happened after the fact so it can be argued then that there are no beneficially or negative traits unless you can predict which ones are which. Simply describing those traits that are left as beneficial doesn't make them so and it may well then be a random process that you describe as non-random after the fact.

 

[DJ...]

@ DJ

becareful to use wikipedia as a source of information.

I'm aware of the pitfalls of wiki. Luckily I wasn;t writing a thesis, I was merely pointing Ekstasis to a condensed group of objections to what he posted...

That's because they do. But as has been pointed out many don't and you will find some reason to launch an ad hominem attack against them. Stop with this conspiracy claptrap. Where everyone suffers from the same delusions you don't need a conspiracy and you only pull this card where your argument fails as is the case here, just like the racist card.

Um, Ekstasis claimed there is a conspiracy of scientists and information outlets controlling this all. He is quite open about it. Perhaps put on those spectacles and try again...

Stop with this claptrap. The speed of light is no big deal.

Ah right. Einstein's theories are no big deal at all. Gotcha. The majority of mankind will disagree with you, especially considering that most of technology has its basis in his theories, but nonetheless - what does the rest of the world know, right? We've got you to set us straight...

This new age atheist bull****

New Age and atheism are two completely different things. You should know this...

Evolution poses no problem for me but it does for you and millions of others because what do you have when you don't have evolution?

If it is disproven, then so be it. I couldn't give a hoot. Whatever is proven thereafter will shape my understanding of the world around me. Until then, and without any credible evidence that this global conspiracy of scientists is pulling the wool over our eyes, I'm gonna stick with what we both observe, and can prove. Evolution...

So without evolution it's a major blow to YOUR religion.

Ah, and once again the belief system claim comes to the fore. Considering it was just discussed two days ago, in great depth, and you are well aware of this, I am not going to turn this into another back and forth about your warped definition. Be my guest. I'll be at my atheist temple drinking fermented hop-water...

You believe that some random unpredictable "force" dictates what happens in this universe? Here is your problem with natural selection. Does it select what is beneficial or discard what isn't? If so why do selection at all and not just leave what is beneficial and what isn't? Darwin thought it was an actual force and incorrectly led him to then classify the appendix as useless and decreasing in size because of that. That's Lamarckism. The modern idea is that's it simply describes what happened after the fact so it can be argued then that there are no beneficially or negative traits unless you can predict which ones are which. Simply describing those traits that are left as beneficial doesn't make them so and it may well then be a random process that you describe as non-random after the fact.

No really now. Are we really going to go over this all again? Do we really have to start full circle with this?

 

[cyghost]

You're generalizing. What is logical for some is not logical for others.

Glad I could entertain you
I'm just saying that logic is subjective in many cases

I am sorry but you are doing logic wrong. You need to address this first and foremost.

 

[Ekstasis]

You are aware that wikipedia is driven by content derived from you and I. Not some global organisation who determine what to put in where and when.

you mean wikipedia are driven by our unedited information like E is driven by NS?

 

[Ekstasis]

Logic is a point of view lad, if it cannot be objectively proven in a lab then it doesnt exist in science. When I say lab you know what I mean so dont get all smartass on me.

Science doesn't have logical answers for everything ....lad. And everything in this world is not falsifiable...lad. On that note, do you reckon that evolutionary science backdated to a common ancestor has been objectively proven in a lab smartass? The building block of life is DNA, right? ID supporters will not argue that this is common ground.

 

[DJ...]

you mean wikipedia are driven by our unedited information like E is driven by NS?

I'm pretty sure you're trying to say something here. I'm just not sure what it is...

Science doesn't have logical answers for everything

Yet...

And everything in this world is not falsifiable

Yet...

The building block of life is DNA, right? ID supporters will not argue that this is common ground.

Common ground for what?! Use your words, Ekstasis. Use your words...

 

[Techne]

Science doesn't have logical answers for everything ....lad.

Indeed. And for certain things empirical science cannot provide an answer.

And everything in this world is not falsifiable...lad.

Indeed. And many important concepts just are not empirically testable to begin with. Nothing really controversial about this.

 

[DJ...]

Indeed. And for certain things empirical science cannot provide an answer.


Indeed. And many important concepts just are not empirically testable to begin with. Nothing really controversial about this.

Oh you mean philosophical concepts because you're banned from PD and like to destroy all other threads by turning them into PD-man-gravy for your pleasure? Obviously you can't be referring to aspects relating to our physical existence in this universe, or they'd have a physical, testable bearing.

Congrats on once again trying to drag this down your path. Not sure what pleasure you get from it but knowing your style, I'm betting it's twisted and masochistic to the nth degree...