The Evolution Delusion: conspiracy ?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


My problem with this post is that you, and most other "evolutionists" always feel the need to go up against and/or disprove creationism, instead of just looking at evolution itself and really scrutinizing it, its processes and the probabilities of all this happening by pure accident.

I believe evolution does occur in some form, animals surly change over time(although clearly for some reason not everywhere?, i can post many examples of creatures that have not changed in millions of years if you want).

When you consider this, HOW DOES apparent randomness(which is just a term describing the unpredictable or misunderstood!) lead to obvious purpose, within animals, communities and organs, each and every one of your cells, be it liver heart or brain, don't wander aimlessly around your body but perform specific life sustaining tasks, there appears to be noting accidental about there behavior, extraordinary complexity and their general activities..

the more i look and study the cell, DNA and evolution in general the more astounded i become, i find it hard to swallow(though i'm not denying it) that pure chance created the wide diversity of adaption we observe ANYWHERE we look!!!

just for the record I am not a "creationist"

Even the supposedly "simple cells", those first organisms, single celled and billions of years old, were simply not SIMPLE!

even one cell contains around 2000 proteins, each protein with around 500 amino acids in each, then threes the nucleus housing the code for life, the double helix formation, which undeniably contains information, this is an amazing organism, and the chances of chance creating this are literally astronomical...One can only truly realize the holes in evolution when you study the cells and particularly proteins, oh and the cell membrane, the brain of the cell!!!



Sorry for the long post, firts post here!




posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by nophun
 


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.


This is the thing. Even if something looks designed, and there is still not evidence supporting a designer it is not science or fact.

Lets look at this rock in France.


It is close to a perfect sphere. I could easily say my god Ralph created this on the 4th day of creation. I would never be able to prove it, no matter how designed this rock looks Science shows us this rock is formed from splash erosion (water).

No matter how much my rock looks like it had a designer there is nothing proving it and science is giving us clear picture of what made this rock a near perfect sphere.

This is the difference in Evolution and Creation .. One is based on facts the other belief.

I got to run I will be back to finish in a bit



[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by nophun
 


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.


This is the thing. Even if something looks designed, and there is still not evidence supporting a designer it is not science or fact.

Lets look at this rock in France.


It is close to a perfect sphere. I could easily say my god Ralph created this on the 4th day of creation.


I would never be able to prove it, no matter how designed this rock looks Science shows us this rock is formed from splash erosion (water).

Your problem here is that you say science shows us, and swallow it as being true for sure, as though nobody has any reason to tell you a different story, science shows us, we must decide and research and cross correlate. a rock forming like this may well happen, but a rock is basically a moot point when compared to the cell. I find it hard at times to criticize those "Creationist" because it is not an illogical conclusion to arrive at to assert that, when looking at the cell, in all its technological Marvell, that we are indeed viewing something that has been designed for purpose...

I am not 100 per cne sure of either argument but remain interested hugely in answers!!



No matter how much my rock looks like it had a designer there is nothing proving it and science is giving us clear picture of what made this rock a near perfect sphere.

This is the difference in Evolution and Creation .. One is based on facts the other belief.

I got to run I will be back to finish in a bit



[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Even if something looks designed, and there is still not evidence supporting a designer it is not science or fact.

Even with something that looks designed, the intelligence could have existed afterwords from what looks designed. That would be Evolution of Intelligence.

We simulate such Artificial Intelligence in genetic pools. It's artificial because there obviously was a designer that affected the genetic pool.

Schroedinger's cat obviously applies here where Intelligent Design would only exist where the gene pool is completely unaffected by any designer.

That is not even Creationism. We create gene pools of Artificial Intelligence. It would be a scientific miracle for Intelligent Design to actually happen. It wouldn't be a scientific miracle to explain Creationism.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
reply to post by nophun
 


Even if something looks designed, and there is still not evidence supporting a designer it is not science or fact.


This is correct.
The fact is we know is how erosion works. we know it is most likely (on a huge scale) that my rock was shaped with erosion not my god Ralph.

Even if nophun or dzonatas did not see the erosion happening does not make it less likely that erosion is the answer.

I am not directly trying to disprove Ralph there in no conspiracy, we just have the answer to the question. Ralph is just not a legitimate option anymore.

There is no reason to accept Ralph (a designer), if we know the answer.
Remember the only "proof" we have for Ralph is the rock looks designed.

Just because something looks designed does not make it designed nor does it disprove a designer, knowing the answer is what hurts Ralph's case.


[edit on 27-2-2010 by nophun]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I still fail to see how evolution disproves creation. It would make sense for an intelligent being of SOME SORT to introduce a system that self-modifies it's "hardware" and "Software" and adapts itself to new conditions. Adaptive/self-modifying/adaptive software is one of the holy grails of computing and in computing hardware (see kwabena boahens Neurogrid concept for adaptive hardware, although it can not physically add to itself it can compensate for faults within its processing)


That aside personally i believe in creation, But i also believe in evolution and the old earth model as well. The OP seems to focus on young-earth creationists. Their views do not accurately represent all creationists. Either way OP you hit the nail on the head with that particular group of creationists. Most of us educated Theists can't stand to be associated with them.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


If we say these 3 systems are all scientifically proven:

* Creationism
* Evolution
* Intelligent Design

Let's say Creationism is proven true, and Evolution is proven true.

Based on these 3 systems being a scientific study, we know by such studies there is a control group. That would make Intelligent Design the control group by the logic transistion to say both Creationism and Evolution is true.

However, by those two being true, it makes Intelligent Design proven as a lie.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
This is possibly one of the most infamous arguments of all time, evolution v's creationism, or evolution v's intelligent design.
Ask me and Ill tell you that Im convinced evolution is fact, but I will also tell you that I beleive in life having an ultimate meaning/purpous, I wont quite venture to call it 'GOD' but I will say, I think Evolution IS intelligent design.

The idea of life/evolution itself being a totally random series of flukes and otherwise meaningless in itself, to be an extremely arrogant idea.
Adaption is perfect, its all perfect infact, the symbiosis of all species, the food chain, the interaction of flora and fauna in perfect symbiosis, the biosphere and weather, even microbes and bacteria all function perfectly as a whole.
The very 'placement' ,for want of a better phrase, of our planet in relation to its star, is perfect for all life here.
To me, such perfection has meaning.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


The problem with your little logic game is that you're assuming Creationism and ID can be proven true. A supposition I might add that is patently false in its very nature.

Why even venture in this exercise of obvious futility. It adds nothing to your argument.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by wayaboveitall
 


I agree, though one could argue that it is not perfect because of things such as Genetic anomalies. This in turn leads to the slippery slope argument that since it is not perfect -because it doesn't meet criterias such as "fairness" towards humans or other emotions and ideals we would attribute to a loving or "perfect" creator- that it somehow means that there is no god therefore no creation is involved.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DeathShield
It would make sense for an intelligent being of SOME SORT to introduce a system that self-modifies it's "hardware" and "Software" and adapts itself to new conditions.


The question is if we can transition both Evolution and Creationism into just one subject of Intelligent Design.

That would mean would would prove both Evolution and Creationism as false in order to say Intelligent Design is true.

People will wonder if it is optimal to use just one system or two. It's kinda of like monotheism versus polytheism all over again, yet this time Evolution and Creationism is the polytheist view.

The problem is where the "Designer" is located. It the Designer is "inside" the affected area of Intelligent Design, it matters with no other question of infinite existence. If the Designer is "outside" the affected area of Intelligent Design then there is continual question if the Designer affected what was Intelligently Designed.

One is obviously not optimal from a logical view as there are simply too many questions.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Once again you are are attempting to argue this on a philosophical level, and not a scientific one. As such it is insanity to even attempt equate one with the other as they are not even on the same proverbial playing field.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
reply to post by dzonatas
 


The problem with your little logic game is that you're assuming


That's obvious by the use of "Let's say" and "If" propositions. That is BASIC grammar. There was no game, as it is a logic proposition. These expressions are heavenly used in Discrete Math and computer program languages.

Otherwise, I have no idea why you wanted to point out a proposition as "patently false."


Why even venture in this exercise of obvious futility. It adds nothing to your argument.


Discrete Math and program languages are used to prove logic expression. It's natural.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Once again you are are attempting to argue this on a philosophical level, and not a scientific one. As such it is insanity to even attempt equate one with the other as they are not even on the same proverbial playing field.


There is nothing philosophical about a logic proposition. I think you assumed my position was from a non logical viewpoint.

I look at it architecturally... not philosophically.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Well if i am not mistaken there are already unified Hypotheses of evolution + creation = intelligently design. I have been proposing that very notion for a while now. The problem is that evolution is the only part that empirically testable.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


I agree that it is obvious evolution is involved. We surely can't exclude evolution from the entire issue.

While I execute logic propositions, I have to compute the negative and positive poles for each view. This means a bunch of "If A + B = ! C" or "!A + B = C" or "A + !B = !C" etc etc

[edit on 27-2-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Hey,
Sorry I missed you post the first time around.



Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun
 


My problem with this post is that you, and most other "evolutionists" always feel the need to go up against and/or disprove creationism, instead of just looking at evolution itself and really scrutinizing it, its processes and the probabilities of all this happening by pure accident.



Well maybe "evolutionists" like myself think the next big step in human evolution is to drop "The God Delusion"
(sorry bad joke I know)

I don't know where I gave the impression that I am not skeptical towards Evolution. I was more skeptical when I did not have a good understanding what the theory is saying. My skepticism is what lead me to support evolution and natural selection.

With your opening pargraph on it seems you are the one that is not showing enough skepticism on the subject.

"By pure accident/chance" this is a creationist way of looking at evolution.
The old tornado in a junkyard creating a complete airplane argument, or the pulling a lever on a slot machine needing to match a million cherries.

This is not the case, if it was like a slot machine natural selection will HOLD all the beneficial changes and keep on pulling the lever added more and more cherries.

( I can explain this much better if you want )


Originally posted by Zenithar
reply to post by nophun
 


I believe evolution does occur in some form, animals surly change over time(although clearly for some reason not everywhere?, i can post many examples of creatures that have not changed in millions of years if you want).

I will need a example. I can give you tons of examples of change in everything from Humans to mads best friend. (puppies obviously)




When you consider this, HOW DOES apparent randomness(which is just a term describing the unpredictable or misunderstood!) lead to obvious purpose, within animals, communities and organs, each and every one of your cells, be it liver heart or brain, don't wander aimlessly around your body but perform specific life sustaining tasks


again your just not understanding what evolution is. Here is a great video that I think should give you a better understanding.



I am not trying to be rash or rude, I am just not great at explaining though words
I will be happy to try to explain better if needed



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 

Only one of those has been proven true.

By Creationism I assume you mean just belief in the 6 days of creation ?
If so this cannot be proven true without the act of god showing his power. I would not hold my breath.

Intelligent Design is proven they are scientifically incompetent .. I have little faith in them showing anything is fact.

Evolution is proven science, I am sorry I cannot take assuming the other two are even close to the same thing.

Again sorry I just will not comment more then that.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nophun
 


Nophun. Not to be rude or condescending here, but you do realize that creationism is not limited to the 6 day time frame? There are many creationists that subscribe to the old earth model.



posted on Feb, 27 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


Oh, please. You're playing a worn out game of semantics.

Just because you throw the word "if" at the beginning of your philosophical musing doesn't necessarily mean it adds a sheen of validity to it.

The point is you can't compare a personal faith-based belief (Creationism) to a scientific theory (Evolution) to validate another personal faith-based belief (Intelligent Design). Faith-based belief systems and valid science are not interchangeable. Therefore the claim you are attempting to make with your argument is false.


I look at it architecturally... not philosophically.


You can attempt to look at this any way you want, however it is impossible to take the philosophy out of a faith-based belief.





top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join