Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

reply to post by IntastellaBurst


Attacking me does not invalidate the scientific arguments that I presented. Usually a tactic that is used by people who cannot / will not argue the facts

This is not going to get anywhere. Everyone already has what they want to believe in mind and are unwilling to change, so why argue if you're not willing to change? If you're not willing to accept the truth when/if it appears to you? The beginning is unknown and irrelevant to say the least.

Originally posted by stuff1
reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse

 

Where are you reading that evolutionist ignore cosmological events and just focus on the earth?

"Evolutionists" or as I like to call them, biologists, have never been concerned with cosmological events. It is only when Bible thumping ignoramuses like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham bring them up do they get thrown in the mix.

Evolution is defined as " a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. "

Where in that does in mention anything about cosmology?

This will be a brief post due to time constraints.

Evolution is given a bad rap which to some extent it deserves. The dependence of lucky random accident, beneficial genetic mutation,
is daunting.

But we are at a very primitive stage in understanding the formation of life, how it develops and improves, and what other forces might be involved.

Evolution demonstrably worked in selected examples. The wolves with the heavier coats do better in cold climates, longer necked giraffes eat better, etc.

One gets to appreciate evolution more when it is seen not as the complete answer, but a recognized component of something much greater and vastly more complex.

British scientist Rupert Sheldrake has been working on a larger scale explanation of the mechanisms of life. He believes and has tried to demonstrate scientifically that there exists what he calls a "Morphic Field" permeating every living form. This creates a connection between all similar forms so that they are able to benefit and essentially learn collectively.

All amoeba may appear to be isolated, but their field connection makes it possible for them all to improve their hardiness when one of them experiences a beneficial change through the process of evolutionary randomness.

More thoughts on all this maybe soon. I believe it is the basis of still to be developed sciences that will provide a more solid explanation of how life
moves away from entropy towards better organization.

For now I recommend a look at the Wikipedia summary:

en.wikipedia.org...


Mike

I am opposed to the bible and all religion but not so towards creationism. I just think its something you and I cannot explain entirely as we do not have the necessary knowledge. Evolution is somewhat ludicrous in my mind but I'll take that over Christ and God or some spiritual all knowing guy making us any day!
Any day!!

Yah it makes total sense that the WEAK, DUMB, and absolute ignorant would pass on their genes to future generations.

That way, we would ensure survival of the species right?

God people on this forum need to get a grip.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING.

That’s not how it works......

It is understood that because we don’t know what happened before the big bang we can’t really say what caused it. You can claim it’s god all you want but that doesn’t change the fact unless you give some scientific evidence as to what god is and the mechanism of how god created the big bang then you’ve got nothing but magic.

Now scientists aren’t saying the universe came out of nothing – which really would be magic. They are saying we don’t know what came before the big bang but from what we can gather, from what the evidence we have at the moment can tell us, is that there was a beginning 13.5 billion years ago. What caused that beginning is still anyone’s guess but because we don’t know what caused that beginning doesn’t and shouldn’t meant god did it because you still have to demonstrate how god did it and what god is.

When you imply logic such as something came from nothing is illogical then you must apply that exact same reasoning to god. If you assume everything had a beginning then where did god come from? You fail to use the same reasoning you apply to atheists to your own belief....

And that really is the major downfall of all Christians and religious people alike who deem it necessary to criticize evolution because it goes against their holy book and yet are unable to use the same critical thinking on their own belief in god.

Please apply “NOTHING then there was SOMETHING” to god as you have in your second paragraph and you will achieve an intellectual breakthrough in your mind.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by andre18]

When will this ridiculous war between evolutionists and creationists come to an end? I can't understand why you people go to such lengths to smear dirt on one another, don't you have anything better to do with your time?

Why don't we all just abide to our own beliefs and let others abide to theirs.

Neither of the theories can ever be proven. There is no use in arguing over something that you cannot prove.

BTW, if I did have to choose, I'd rather believe in evolution. Why? Simply because it sounds less silly.

[edit on 28/5/2009 by mandrake]

Oh dear, another "evolution is bunk" thread by someone who fails to distinguish between the Big Bang and evolution and obviously has no understanding of what a scientific theory is. The word "theory" in science doesn't mean "best guess", it is backed by empirical evidence. A damned site more evidence than some deity doing it all, I might add.

For someone who has supposedly "researched this", as you said yourself, you seem to be woefully ill informed about everything in your first post.

I don't have the time to tear it apart now, but rest assured I'll be back later on today to try and educate you.

However, I know full well you won't listen and you'll happily continue wasting your life praying to some fictional character from a 2,000+ year old story written by ignorant Goat herders.

Originally posted by stumason
The word "theory" in science doesn't mean "best guess", it is backed by empirical evidence...

Yes exactly, most people don't realize for something in science to be a 'theory' (scientific theory, or empirical theory) it has to be testable and repeatable and has to be based on a formal system of logic. If any part of the science is found to be illogical it's not a theory.

It's not just people assuming or guessing.

If it doesn't fit the scientific criteria it's known as a hypothesis.

Edit; Oh btw, creationism is a hypothesis.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

Originally posted by stuff1
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING. Once the steady state model of an infinite universe was debunked the only logical conclusion is that something / someone outside of space time created the universe. To believe that a singularity was created out of nothing means you believe in miracles, just like creationist do.

Well there's your problem
creation.com...
Well there's your problem^

Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Evolution of the stars is also based on faith. Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas, and it has long been recognized that the clouds don’t spontaneously collapse and form ...

If your going to argue against something, I highly suggest knowing the subject first so you don't make a fool out of yourself. If I wanted to know about Jebus, Id go to a religious website. If you want to know anything...Anything science related, don't use a religious website.

" THE
MORE
YOU
KNOW! "

The OP in this thread is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy.

Or at least a plot.

Originally posted by cancerian42
This is not going to get anywhere. Everyone already has what they want to believe in mind and are unwilling to change, so why argue if you're not willing to change? If you're not willing to accept the truth when/if it appears to you? The beginning is unknown and irrelevant to say the least.

Not true I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I was never given the other side of the story. If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist. Some people who go to an "Origins" thread must be at least be open to other possibilities.

Originally posted by N3krostatic
I am opposed to the bible and all religion but not so towards creationism. I just think its something you and I cannot explain entirely as we do not have the necessary knowledge. Evolution is somewhat ludicrous in my mind but I'll take that over Christ and God or some spiritual all knowing guy making us any day!
Any day!!

As long as you know that your objection is not based on review of current science and is based on philosophical objections. If you are ok with that, than that is your God given right.

Originally posted by stuff1
Not true I used to be an atheist evolutionist, I was never given the other side of the story. If people where taught both views and given a choice the majority of people would be creationist. Some people who go to an "Origins" thread must be at least be open to other possibilities.

I used to be a Christian Redneck Flat Earth Creationist, but then one day I picked a book about evolution and read it and when I was done I was a Evolutionist who later became fund of Taoist philosophy. As you're surely an expert on evolution would you care to tell me, with which of these two species (if the theory is correct) we share a closer common ancestor, a tiger or a wolf? Also which of these two is closer to us, an elephant or an armadillo? Also ancestor wise (great-great....grandparent) which is closer to an oran gutan, a bonobo or a human?

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


This is probably the best post out of everyone. You are telling me that

1. The universe happened - evolutionist don't need to know "earmuffs "

2. The stars came - evolutionist don't need to know "earmuffs "

3. The earth came - evolutionist don't need to know "earmuffs "

4. The animals came - now we care!!!!

And I am the "ignoramous"? If that is your view than I love it. Another reason for evolutionist to think about their beliefs

Originally posted by andre18

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter from Big Bang concluded that there was NOTHING then there was SOMETHING.

That’s not how it works......

It is understood that because we don’t know what happened before the big bang we can’t really say what caused it. You can claim it’s god all you want but that doesn’t change the fact unless you give some scientific evidence as to what god is and the mechanism of how god created the big bang then you’ve got nothing but magic.

Now scientists aren’t saying the universe came out of nothing – which really would be magic. They are saying we don’t know what came before the big bang but from what we can gather, from what the evidence we have at the moment can tell us, is that there was a beginning 13.5 billion years ago. What caused that beginning is still anyone’s guess but because we don’t know what caused that beginning doesn’t and shouldn’t meant god did it because you still have to demonstrate how god did it and what god is.

When you imply logic such as something came from nothing is illogical then you must apply that exact same reasoning to god. If you assume everything had a beginning then where did god come from? You fail to use the same reasoning you apply to atheists to your own belief....

And that really is the major downfall of all Christians and religious people alike who deem it necessary to criticize evolution because it goes against their holy book and yet are unable to use the same critical thinking on their own belief in god.

Please apply “NOTHING then there was SOMETHING” to god as you have in your second paragraph and you will achieve an intellectual breakthrough in your mind.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by andre18]

I respect your rebuttal. But consider the following (which I linked too in my first post)


Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning . God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.

Originally posted by stuff1

I respect your rebuttal. But consider the following (which I linked too in my first post)


Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
The universe has a beginning.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning . God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

The potential for the beginning of the Universe had no beginning and thus doesn't require a cause. The potential for the beginning of the Universe is very simple, unlike an omnipotent God which is by default even more complex than the Universe itself. Let's apply Occam's razor on a simple thing, the potential for the beginning of the Universe always existing vs the most complex thing imaginable always existing.. yep God fails miserably.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by mmiichael


You do not "move from entropy to order" that has never been observed in any field of science. Yet it is theorized in biology which ignores this fact. Also entropy CAN be applied to opens systems (i.e. earth). As you can see in the following links

www.icr.org...

www.icr.org...

Originally posted by Wally Hope
You have to be kidding right?

And we didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor.


[edit on 27-5-2009 by Wally Hope]

Perhaps we have a common creator