The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

‘When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.’
-Robert M. Pirsig

www.randomhouse.com.au...

Is this where the creationist claim of Evolution is Religion comes from ?
Lets look at a few common Creationist claims.

• Evolution is just a theory not fact.
  
• Carbon dating is wrong.
  
• There is no evidence of Evolution.
  
• The gaps, the gaps!
  
• Cambrian explosion.
  
• Crocoduck has STILL not been found.
  
• Proof of Dinosaurs and humans walking side by side. (foot prints)
  
• fossils do not show ancestry.
  
• The second law of thermodynamics.
  

If all these were true, I think Creationist would have proof that evolutionist, including a extremely high percent of the worlds scientists are delusional or there is a conspiracy of the highest level going on.

Seeing everything in that list (and the stuff I was to lazy to add) is proven time and time again to be false, Evolution must be the biggest conspiracy ever.

Is this what creationist think ? Do they really think all but less then %1 of scientists on Earth are in on some kind massive conspiracy ?

You have had to ask yourself this. How is 99%+ of the worlds scientists working together in a HUGE conspiracy against "your religion" ?

And why ..

I am sure some of you will say this is not conspiracy, rather scientists are just wrong.
You need to prove this. Every creationist argument fails. (bad)

Creationist are not only claiming Evolution is wrong they are saying our dating methods are wrong, and anything that goes against the bible is wrong!

There is never issues with a vaccine ... even if our knowledge of Evolution is the knowledge we used to create said vaccine. We are okay with TV and our Cell phones and anything that does not disprove the bible. How can science have 90% of everything RIGHT until it comes to disagree with a old book ?



The Evolution Delusion ?


[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

reply to post by nophun


I think it's a safe bet to say that much closer to 100% of all biologists agree that the theory of evolution accurately describes the phenomenon of evolution.

Most people who argue that the ToE is false do so from ignorance, not because there are holes in the theory (which is about as water-tight as possible).

I don't think creationists understand that to disprove the ToE, they have to disprove every single discovery and piece of evidence that backs it up. Including DNA.

But anyway, I'm sure this thread will be a rousing success, filled with creationists saying how piltdown man disproves everything or, as you said, hiding in the gaps, and people with even a rudimentary biology education fruitlessly trying to teach them.

Here we go again!

Last numbers I remember seeing is 0.15%-0.20% American scientists in Evolution related science believe in God the creator. It is under a tenth of a percent for the rest of the world

Those numbers might be old, or even wrong I will try to find them again.

Originally posted by nophun
You have had to ask yourself this. How is 99%+ of the worlds scientists working together in a HUGE conspiracy against "your religion" ?

I'm trying to figure out where your numbers are coming from. Can you provide a list of names that totals 99% of the world's scientists that have publicly agreed with evolution or creationism? No? Then how can you possibly speak for them?

What you're doing is, in fact, creating misinformation or disinformation by claiming that 99% of the world's scientists sway one way or another when there's no possible way you can support this claim.

Bibles describe "gods" that came to this planet and created us in their image and likeness. There was a humanoid creature on this planet, but there's not enough evidence with the gaps, that we, modern humans, evolved on this planet.

Originally posted by davesidious
Including DNA.

Scientists studying our DNA have said that our DNA looks like computer code. That would suggest that we were intelligently created and "programmed" by those intelligent beings who created us in their image and likeness.

I also believe that article stated that the odds of nature creating our DNA to look and read like computer code is astronomical.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Because any biologist's work will entirely, 100% rely on the theory of evolution being correct. It's like we don't find many builders who believe that water will stick bricks together - most of them have figured out cement does a better job, as their entire work depends on it.

Of course there is enough evidence that humans evolved here. You just don't know about it. Here is a good introduction.

I was wrong by using "99%+ of the worlds scientists" I obviously made a big mistake by not saying ..

99.85% - 99.90% of scientists in earth and life sciences.

It is only 95% of all scientists polled, including computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.

www.talkorigins.org...

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by davesidious
Including DNA.

Scientists studying our DNA have said that our DNA looks like computer code. That would suggest that we were intelligently created and "programmed" by those intelligent beings who created us in their image and likeness.

Source please

I am not saying DNA does not look like code, I have a hard time believing real scientists saying this proved ID in any way.

so source please

Thanks

probably because its easier to have one word answers...GOD

Originally posted by nophun
I am not saying DNA does not look like code, I have a hard time believing real scientists saying this proved ID in any way.

so source please

Thanks

Here you go, although this was posted on ATS before, so I can't believe you wouldn't know about it or forgot about it:


"DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution"

www.gnmagazine.org...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm trying to figure out where your numbers are coming from. Can you provide a list of names that totals 99% of the world's scientists that have publicly agreed with evolution or creationism? No? Then how can you possibly speak for them?

It is reasonable to assume that professional scientists have adopted a scientific worldview. The theory of evolution is an aspect of that worldview which is uncontested within the scientific community.

What you're doing is, in fact, creating misinformation or disinformation by claiming that 99% of the world's scientists sway one way or another when there's no possible way you can support this claim.

It is not impossible to support this claim. You could ask them, or ask a representitive sample of them. In principal his statement is clearly testable. An example of a statement that cannot be supported, even in principal, is this: "God created DNA, fossils, and everything, and just planted evidence throughout which scientists will interpret as the natural undirected development of the universe."

Bibles describe "gods" that came to this planet and created us in their image and likeness. There was a humanoid creature on this planet, but there's not enough evidence with the gaps, that we, modern humans, evolved on this planet.

And fairy tales describe "fairies" that live in the woods. So what?

Enough evidence? There will never be enough evidence for people who have decided to base their beliefs on the doctrine of a religion, regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

There is enough evidence to support the theory that humans evolved the same way everthing else did, and absolutely no evidence supporting any alternitive theory.

Scientists studying our DNA have said that our DNA looks like computer code. That would suggest that we were intelligently created and "programmed" by those intelligent beings who created us in their image and likeness.

Is that what they said? Are you familiar with analogies? They are comparisons useful for understanding things. The DNA "code" analogy is useful when describing what DNA is like and what it does. DNA does not actually "look" like computer code. DNA is made of complex organic molecules, computer code is not. Computer code is numerical - often bianary - DNA is not. DNA is a double helix, computer code is not. The list goes on.

DNA does not have any visual similarities to computer code. Computer code is a mathematical structure which can be instantiated in virtually any physical medium; it doesn't really "look like" anything. Do you see numbers when you look at the DNA double helix?

Even if it did, that would not suggest that intelligent being "programmed" us to look like them. As with all analogies, you can only take this one so far; if DNA is the code what is the computer? Did they also program everything else that has DNA?

Dreams look like movies, does that mean that some intelligent alien is directing them?

I also believe that article stated that the odds of nature creating our DNA to look and read like computer code is astronomical.

Well, it doesn't look like computer code, and whoever calculated those odds went about the wrong way because that's exactly what happened. How does one calculate the odds of nature creating something that looks like something else? I'm just curious now, I think that making claims about the odds of a chemical structure looking a certain way are virtually meaningless.

[edit on 2/27/10 by OnceReturned]

reply to post by nophun


Actually, a number of scientists have made their opinions known. Michael Behe and his idea of irreducible complexity is well known. I love how evolutionists bring up scaffolding BS when such a mechanism would just further along the intelligent design theory.

It doesn't take much brain power to see that DNA and the cell are encoded with massive amounts of information...It also doesn't take much to see the motivation for a belief in evolution...

Seriously though, the idea that information formed itself and the beings to decode and comprehend it by unknown chance is absurd.I make NO claims that I know how it all happened, but chance is looking pretty weak the deeper we look.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


It might suggest that to the layperson, but not to scientists who actually understand it better. Do you want me to post a link to DNA to you, so you can see how it came to be?

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That article is a joke. It basically outlines DNA and its discovery, then proceeds to lunge into a bunch of nonsense about how unlikely it is that it can be accidental, all without any actual supporting evidence. It's intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


Michael Behe's idea of "irreducible complexity" has yet to be demonstrated, as nothing biological has been found that is irreducibly complex. His "science" regularly fails to pass peer review, being constantly rejected as bogus or non-scientific.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Dude that is all creationist propaganda.. nothing to do with science.

This is quote mining .

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

They are taking a quote out of context to make a false case.
The quote is from his book "The Road Ahead" and the paragraph is about the need of a good teachers .. nothing to do with facts ID or Evolution.

All the "sources" on that page are all huge creationist supporters or quotes wrongly out of context.

Is that the best case you got ?

This brings me back to my point, why do no scientist in the Earth and Life science buy into these ideas ?

Even if Bill Gates was supporting the idea of ID ... he is not a biologist.

some other "sources" used.

Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds - published by fundamentalist Christian publisher Intervarsity Press.

Here is the "best source" I found on your page.

Darwin's Black Box by biochemist Michael Behe.
You can go here ..
www.talkorigins.org...
To see the problems with him.

Do better then "The Good News" next time.

Please

reply to post by davesidious


Actually yes, flagella are irreducibly complex.

Can you think of one example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process
which can be shown to increase the information in the genome?

[edit on 27-2-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by nophun


If if DNA is converted into words and someone comes along and says, "don't make-up words" then they essentially have tried to say "don't make anything but exact copies of yourself."

That could be quite a serious religious position for someone into Intelligent Design that attempts to prove DNA. That kind of person may even use reverse burden of proof in attempts to 'rope a dope' into Intelligent Design, or at least to create an idealist to support Intelligent Design.

Let's get to the root difference between Intelligent Design and Evolution. The difference is Intelligence itself. The person into Intelligent Design tries to prove that Intelligence existed before Design. Those in Evolution says it doesn't matter and that it could be pure natural chance for something out of a genetic pool to appear designed.

There are computer programs to support the genetic pool theory. Such simulations attempt to randomly find an assembly of code that best solves a problem by survival of the fittest.

reply to post by nophun


I think that you get a perfect storm situation whereby a number of factor come together scuh as:

A belief that the bible is literally the word of god.

Self-segregation with only like-minded people

The crisis in American science education.

And the peer group payoff ( peer approval in whatever form.

You put this heady mix together and addd a kind of self hypnosis or self brainwashing and away ya go.

There are so many websites and groups that reafirm all of this stuff

We are also in the post modern era hence the old perpsectives that were upheld by the respect for authority has gone so anyones ideas are equally valid (in some people's heads).


[edit on 27-2-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Tiger5]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by Tiger5]

Originally posted by randyvs

Can you think of one example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process
which can be shown to increase the information in the genome?

If you are interested in a focus on a natural order (and chaos), then you may be interested in my other thread, which is just initial research, and the thread itself proves the exponential information that is possible. Very hard to 'focus' on the center point of that thread. In fact, I thought the whole 'meditation lotus' is key to understand how to view genetic mutations in such a multi-dimensional perspective.

Outside of ATS, where we have simulator and been 'thinking outside the box' about this, we have proven many concepts to reduce lag in heterogeneous systems.

Remarkably, the lag to evolve, as per Evolution, is to become deluded by the exponential results of what such mechanics can achieve. We focus on just the execution of the mechanics. The simulation is all abstract from there.

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
reply to post by davesidious

 

Actually yes, flagella are irreducibly complex.

irreducibly complexity of the flagella is old, Is nothing more then a question that has been answered a million times. But all the creationist YouTube videos still tell you to ask about it.

www.millerandlevine.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by randyvs

Can you think of one example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process
which can be shown to increase the information in the genome?

[edit on 27-2-2010 by randyvs]

is this the question "that stumped Prof. Richard Dawkins" on youtube ?
www.youtube.com...

Yes it is ... you piss me off.
Here is the story behind what the TRUTH is. and yes your question is answered .. I should make you explain what you are asking ... genius

dzonatas I brb going to eat

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]

[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]