Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Ahh - the famous 'straw man' counter argument. Is that all you can say? I know it's easy to say it but to disporved what I just said must be difficult thus the straw man response.

If there's something untrue in what I said then correct me please and explain away how life came to be in support of evolution. I'm listening.

Yes, it's all I can say when that's all you've done. Literally every single argument you made in that post is a straw man argument, each consisting of a misrepresentation of a key point of the theory of evolution. If all you have to falsify evolution is a series of fallacies, then you've effectively said nothing.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

I laughed so hard when I read that. Truer words were never spoken. But trust me. 'They' will never get it. I've given up hope on trying to reach them.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

You are too good.

Just what we needed. Another thread of mrvdreamknight cheerleading without saying anything themselves. Bravo.

Besides the strawman response - they're next recourse is to always attack the messenger.

That way they never have to respond to the discussion at hand.

I totally annihilated them on a different thread. I got tired of their circular arguments. So I quit responding to them entirely. And I just report them to the mods when they attack me personally.

All of your (edmc^2) arguments are not based on "a misrepresentation of a key point of the theory of evolution" but they are just too close minded to see it.

I guess showing my support for you contributes nothing to this thread.

But somehow iterationzero who responded by repeating strawman over and over contributed a ton to this thread.

Their logic is over powering sometimes.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Besides the strawman response - they're next recourse is to always attack the messenger.

That way they never have to respond to the discussion at hand.

I totally annihilated them on a different thread. I got tired of their circular arguments. So I quit responding to them entirely. And I just report them to the mods when they attack me personally.

All of your (edmc^2) arguments are not based on "a misrepresentation of a key point of the theory of evolution" but they are just too close minded to see it.

I guess showing my support for you contributes nothing to this thread.

But somehow iterationzero who responded by repeating strawman over and over contributed a ton to this thread.

Their logic is over powering sometimes.

Attack the messenger? You mean like you're trying to do now?

Annihilated? All of your arguments in that thread were "god of the gaps" arguments. The only thing you annihilated was your credibility to come up with a well-founded and logical argument.

I contributed to the thread by pointing out that using a fallacy to try and falsify evolution isn't a credible approach. You posting one-line "attaboy" messages doesn't contribute anything to the thread. It's why you were repeatedly warned by the mods about it in the thread where you claim to have "annihilated" the evidence for evolution.

Originally posted by edmc^2
Evolution theory is

- the formation and existence of life without an intelligent creator.

- the formation of life through random process without an intelligent creator.

- the formation of life as we know it through blind chance without an intelligent creator.

- is the formation and syththesizing of biological compunds to form life by a highly improbable accident without an intelligent creator.

1) Abiogenesis isn't the same as evolution.
2) Evolutions isn't random or steered by "blind chance". If that's what you think, you really have to read up on it better...
3) Evolutionary theory doesn't concern itself with a creator because the theory doesn't need one to "work". It also doesn't concern itself with how life started. It just an account of how things evolve over time, and how new species come to be. It also tells us how we evolved drom a common ancestor with apes to what we are today.

In short, I have a feeling you equal evolution with "chance" or "randomness"...that's really not how it works.

I also think it's hilarious that you call people "evolutionists"...that's like calling people who believe in gravity "gravitistas" or people who believe in thermodynamics "thermodynamicians".

Also, 100% of the comments made to "disprove" evolution fall into the "god of the gaps" category. Here's a clue:

A lack of knowledge isn't proof of anything! So you're whole "so what you're saying everything comes from nothing" statement is beyond laughable. No one is claiming that. We can explain part of it, and what science can't explain just isn't know (yet). No reason to make up fairy tales about creators or unicorns

Yes, hi, what about our 46 chromosomes compared to the chimp's 48? What about all of the stories from around the globe concerning heavenly beings creating humans from existing primates on the planet?

Oh I forgot, we are here worshiping the alter of science. Sure evolution is correct up until a certain point, however, ancient history offers other alternatives to our arrival on the scene.

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
Yes, hi, what about our 46 chromosomes compared to the chimp's 48? What about all of the stories from around the globe concerning heavenly beings creating humans from existing primates on the planet?

Oh I forgot, we are here worshiping the alter of science. Sure evolution is correct up until a certain point, however, ancient history offers other alternatives to our arrival on the scene.

Sure, if you wanna believe 2000 year old goat herders over modern science...be my guest. But I wouldn't bet any money on your BELIEF

I think you've passed me off as something other than what I am. 2000 years? I'm talking about the gold mines in Africa they have found that are 500 000 years old, notwithstanding the 1500 sq. mile metropolis that was found nearby. Science cannot account for the anomolies, so they are brushed away. I'm also talking about the myriard creation 'myths': the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago that spawned the Bablylonians, Persians, and Assyrians, through ALL subsequent "Intelligent advanced civilizations" and "non-advanced" indigenous cultures including the American Indians of North America, Mayan and Inca empires of South America, Aborigines of Australia, ancient Chinese and Hindu text scriptures from the Far East, Egyptians, of the Middle East, Dogons of Africa, and the Greek and Roman Gods of "mythology", every culture accepted for a fact that heavenly beings (Or Gods) had created Man kind. How about the Dogon tribe? The Xulus?

Just the way it is.

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Besides the strawman response - they're next recourse is to always attack the messenger.

That way they never have to respond to the discussion at hand.

I totally annihilated them on a different thread. I got tired of their circular arguments. So I quit responding to them entirely. And I just report them to the mods when they attack me personally.

All of your (edmc^2) arguments are not based on "a misrepresentation of a key point of the theory of evolution" but they are just too close minded to see it.

I guess showing my support for you contributes nothing to this thread.

But somehow iterationzero who responded by repeating strawman over and over contributed a ton to this thread.

Their logic is over powering sometimes.

Attack the messenger? You mean like you're trying to do now?

Annihilated? All of your arguments in that thread were "god of the gaps" arguments. The only thing you annihilated was your credibility to come up with a well-founded and logical argument.

I contributed to the thread by pointing out that using a fallacy to try and falsify evolution isn't a credible approach. You posting one-line "attaboy" messages doesn't contribute anything to the thread. It's why you were repeatedly warned by the mods about it in the thread where you claim to have "annihilated" the evidence for evolution.

"repeatedly warned?" - right. How about I share with you their private messages so you can see what they were really saying? But of course I'm sure that would get me in to some kind of trouble. So I guess I won't.

But for the record, the one warning I received was for posting 'nope' and 'nope' - for which I apologized to the mod and promised not to do it again. I was unaware of the rules here but I have since read and refer to the rules often.

Boy, you're good. You attacked me again and I responded.

The truth of the matter was that the thread you are referring to was called, Creationism: prove it, or something like that. When I reminded the op that we were there to prove creationism, he about blew a gasket. And the thread stalled for a bit but then it picked up steem again because he suckered in some more people to argue about evolution, even though that is not what the thread is suppose to be about. The op has since opened a new thread with a corrected title, proving I was right. (I guess I must have made at least one logical argument there - hunh?)

Since comparing evolution to creationism is like comparing apples to oranges I see no point of debating them anymore.

Evolution does a fair job of explaining how things have gone since it all began but offers no thought on our origin - and it may or may not end up being true.

Creationism offers one possible explanation of how it all began and it may end up being proven true or not.

The point? Neither of them have been proven. Henceforth why there has been countless threads about these subjects.

Whenever either subject is debated the other subject always comes in to play.

Why? I do not know. But it makes zero sense to me. Because even if evolution or creationism is disproved does it really prove the other theory correct? No, it does not. So what is the point of debating them then?

Will you or I change our beliefs? Not hardly.

So then why debate it? Really, why?

Sure we can share our ideas, views, and beliefs, but hasn't this all been done before by far greater intellects than ours?

I have read thousands of posts on ATS about this subject since my first posts here and have learned what a futile debate this really is.

So, please, go ahead and keep attacking me or call me names or whatever you do to try and discredit people with different views than yours. I will have no part of it.

I only offered my support to this op because I believe in what he is saying.

It is my opinion.

I am entitled to it.

No matter how much it may offend you.

Now, how my positive affirmation of a fellow human being justifies you attacking me I'll never understand. My posts were not directed towards you. I meant you no offense. I apologize if I did offend you. But I will continue to offer my support to the people who hold similar beliefs to mine.

-out of sync post-

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
I think you've passed me off as something other than what I am. 2000 years? I'm talking about the gold mines in Africa they have found that are 500 000 years old, notwithstanding the 1500 sq. mile metropolis that was found nearby. Science cannot account for the anomolies, so they are brushed away. I'm also talking about the myriard creation 'myths': the Sumerians, the first great culture 6,000 years ago that spawned the Bablylonians, Persians, and Assyrians, through ALL subsequent "Intelligent advanced civilizations" and "non-advanced" indigenous cultures including the American Indians of North America, Mayan and Inca empires of South America, Aborigines of Australia, ancient Chinese and Hindu text scriptures from the Far East, Egyptians, of the Middle East, Dogons of Africa, and the Greek and Roman Gods of "mythology", every culture accepted for a fact that heavenly beings (Or Gods) had created Man kind. How about the Dogon tribe? The Xulus?

Just the way it is.

And all those people lived at the time where they didn't have 1% of the scientific knowledge we have today...what does that tell you about their "statements" regarding gods? They did the same thing a lot of creationists do today, fill a lack of knowledge with a "creator"...typical god of the gaps.

You don't agree? Well then, how about you post your "proof" or "evidence" for a creator in this thread. It specifically asks creationists to post proof...it's 31 pages long now, and not a single evidence or proof has been posted! Help out your mates and be the first one to post it, we're waiting...

If you can't...well...it just proves you fell into the "god of the gaps" trap by saying a lack of scientific knowledge is proof for a creator.

And lastly, people claiming there is a god 2000 years ago is totally irrelevant if you can't prove them right nowadays. They also believed the earth was flat and that you fall off the edge if you come too close to the edge...or that comets are "signs of god".

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Creationism isn't the "only possible explanation" of how life started...you're falling into the "god of the gaps" trap.

Don't know what that is? You should!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

ancientx.com...

See, you're jumping on me like I'm some backwoods Bible thumper. I've been where you are, dude, believe me (I'm sure we can all appreciate the irony of that statement). Let's do the ol 'dissection of your post' and then I'm going to play me some video games, having done my research for the day. Ohh.. this might be a long one.

And all those people lived at the time

What time? To when are you referring? Which people are you referring to? I referenced many different cultures, each with a very interesting origin, however similar to the rest. I suggest you start by researching the Dogon tribe. Perhaps follow that up by the Xulu tribe, and maybe comparing the creation myths of the Sumerians and the Mayans? I 'believe' I mentioned a certain metropolis uncovered in Africa far reaching beyond our concept of ancient history - a good start, at any rate. Ok, first 8 words out of the way, hey?

where they didn't have 1% of the scientific knowledge we have today...

So then the Mayan calendar which keeps track of years and cycles thousands of years before and after their current moment is a bunch garbage? You mean to tell me that a civilisation like Sumer that knew of the planet Pluto (where we didn't know about its existence until 1930) and a heliocentric solar system; that used Pythagorean math in a pre-Pythagorean era were short sighted religious fanatics with no concept of reality? Maybe they didn't have the technology..er..wait, how did they build the Great Pyramid again, all 2.3 million stones? Have you ever looked into the math that the Great Pyramids use? I don't think you have! --> educate yourself www.halexandria.org... Have you looked into the Sunken Pyramids of Mu, off the coast of Japan? No. Have you researched the Golden Caves of Tayos? No..Have you applied any critical thinking to our history, or have you bought into the appeal to authority fallacy without doing your homework first?

what does that tell you about their "statements" regarding gods? They did the same thing a lot of creationists do today, fill a lack of knowledge with a "creator"...typical god of the gaps.

Yes, perhaps they were a simpler people, but that is not to say they were not subjects of a greater, more complicated race, hey? You have to be pretty dedicated to a 'delusion' to line up by the thousands to be sacrificed.

You don't agree? Well then, how about you post your "proof" or "evidence" for a creator in this thread. It specifically asks creationists to post proof...it's 31 pages long now, and not a single evidence or proof has been posted! Help out your mates and be the first one to post it, we're waiting...

Yer a nice lad. Like the open minded and ration individual posted a few posts back reckoning that the origin of species and the origin of Everything are two entirely different theories. You, yourself, are able to create, how can you not see the macrocosm to your microcosm? You stare at the endless sea of Universe and you think that this tiny blue rock is the apex of creation? We approximate 14 billions years to be a reasonably accurate age of the Universe - that is in our concept of Time, which is all very relative and yet you believe that despite all the evidence to the contrary, we have figured everything out/disproved the concept of a Creator through our definition of a Quark??? lols. There is much evidence that history/reality is not at all as it has been portrayed, surely you can admit that?

If you can't...well...it just proves you fell into the "god of the gaps" trap by saying a lack of scientific knowledge is proof for a creator.

Don't twist my words, I never made any comment of the sort. I said, "heavenly beings" (or Gods)...put on your thinking cap. The original Hebrew text says, "Let Us make man in our image. The Sumerians and Mayans sing the same song.

And lastly, people claiming there is a god 2000 years ago is totally irrelevant if you can't prove them right nowadays. They also believed the earth was flat and that you fall off the edge if you come too close to the edge...or that comets are "signs of god".

You are referring to the Dark Ages, where people threw fecal matter out their window for lack of a better idea on what to do with it. All information pertaining to history and science and spirit were confiscated/destroyed by the Vatican in their ever vigilant attempt to keep mankind dumb and subservient. Christianity is a relative joke, an array of allegory taken from older scripts and stories..Jesus Christ is really Julius Caesar, deified by Constantine as the new blade of Rome's inverted sword of conquest. You probably don't even know that the Vatican owns the US of A. According the Vedic scriptures, by the way, we are in what is known as the Kali Yuga, or spiritual dark age.

You really need to start reading more, man.

Disprove evolution? This thread has thrown EVERYTHING around playing with the ideas of evolution. To be sure, this thread was entertaining.

But, here I go playing Devil's Advocate. I believe in Evolution but am about to prove it nonexistant.

How? Humans. If evolution were real, Humans wouldn't exist.

If Evolution were a reality, Humans would have immune systems that would be unbreachable, we would be capable of surviving in any climate, our food consumption would be streamlined to the point that we would never require the need to dispose of internally produced toxic waste, we would be able to fly, have metal skeletons, and be dumber than a box of rocks.

What humans have 'evolved' into are weaker, more pathetic versions of the hardier species of the planet? I think not. Our minds have advanced a great deal and taken us away from the ability to survive or become more capable of surviving in our current environment. We have become suicidal. Evolution is at work in all other manner of beings in nature, but not in Humans. We have gone backwards in most evolutionary circles, our but our brains are inversely proportional to our physical evolution. The weaker we get, the smarter we become.

If evolution were existant for adaptability and survivalism, we would have claws, not fingernails. We would have wings, not arms. Can you honestly tell me that NATURE forced us to change so that we could use things that don't occur naturally?

If it were for the mental development of the race, why do we have Down's Syndrome? Savants? Murderers? Molesters? Lawyers?

You can't answer it, neither can I. Arguing about evolution is a fool's game because it exists, but it's complete nonsense. Even if evolutionary theory were correct, the evolution of man is something entirely different. We have reached the brink of racial suicide because of our advancements, but it's an all-or-nothing thing.

We evolved from Monkeys and Apes. Why are there still monkeys and apes? Thousands of years of evolution and we still have to use rolls of wadded up paper when we go to the bathroom. Why do we have to wear jackets outside when it's just a bit colder than it was yesterday? We have become puny!

Everything about our existence is contrary to the theory of natural evolution. If Natural Evolution existed, we wouldn't.

*drinks more beer* I understand the above was rambling and unfocused. Best I could come up with.

Just to clarify, when does abiogenesis end and evolution start? Just so I understand the rational behind it.

Actually you would be surprised that those of us that believe in the bible account of creation believe in diversity too. After all, those animals on the ark had the diversity in their genetic code to become all the animals we see today.
Adaptation is considered evolution by some, but it's semantics once again.

To me when we discuss evolution this chart is what we are talking about, you can break it down into all kinds of different categories, you can say it's wrong, the fact is when you say evolution falsify it, we are trying to disprove what is laid out in this chart and that's the bottom line. Or are you going to keep disputing how it should be categorized and defined?

Evolution

Tell me something which doesn't evolve

How many threads like this have you created lol..

The fact that we are merging with machines, is also evolution.

reply to post by Quickfix


That question doesn't disprove evolution at all, in fact it can only be explained by evolution itself. We have different feet because after a while of walking upright, and using tools to accomplish what was previously unimaginable to us, parts of our bodies adapted to this new lifestyle We didn't need to use our feet in the same way; we began to walk on them more instead of using them to climb and maneuver trees. Apes have very usable feet for how they live, humans have very rounded feet that are more designed for walking and running, and that's how we use them. I've read an article a while back that stated Japanese peoples thumbs are getting longer do to the high use of video games and handheld devices with keypads in their population. The use of their thumbs to type on these keyboards is the biggest reason why; longer thumbs equals easier use.

Originally posted by patent98310
I've read an article a while back that stated Japanese peoples thumbs are getting longer do to the high use of video games and handheld devices with keypads in their population. The use of their thumbs to type on these keyboards is the biggest reason why; longer thumbs equals easier use.

Lamark believed that changes made in an animal's body by usage could be passed down to its descendants. This was later proven incorrect.

For the thumbs of Japanese people to evolve into longer thumbs, it's not enough for them to be stretching them to get a longer reach. For this to be an evolutionary change, people who already had longer thumbs would have to have more fertile offspring than people with shorter thumbs.

I'm sceptical that Lamark will be proven correct after all,
or that Japanese girls are rating males desirability on the basis of thumb length.

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
Yes, hi, what about our 46 chromosomes compared to the chimp's 48? What about all of the stories from around the globe concerning heavenly beings creating humans from existing primates on the planet?

Oh I forgot, we are here worshiping the alter of science. Sure evolution is correct up until a certain point, however, ancient history offers other alternatives to our arrival on the scene.

I have a son with 48/49 chromosomes. It's a rare Klinefelter's mosaicism; 48,XXXY/49,XXXXY.
He also has two livers. Now if his chromosomes could be passed on, were not detrimental, and were the cause of the doubled liver, he could have been the start of a whole new species. As it is, he can, unlike most Klinefelter's sufferers, produce live sperm, but they would be unlikely, according to his doctor, to produce a viable embryo.

It's possible for a mutation to occur which changes the chromosome count of a life-form. Most mutations are harmful, but it is possible for mutation to confer an advantage, and be passed on.

That's the extent of my knowledge on this without further study.

Ok, back with the fruits of my reading:

Two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2.

Why the fusion became fixed . . . was due to chance in a very small initial population (the fusion is only weakly deleterious to the affected individual, resulting in a higher incidence of spontaneous abortions in the offspring). All you need is a certain amount of inbreeding in the offspring (which you are going to get in a small breeding population) to fix it.

reply to post by sykickvision



You get my vote for this month's Best Use of Sarcasm award.

Some of the hardcore nutzos on the lunatic fringe of creationism are seriously going to think you're one of them. You'll be getting fan mail from them soon!

Originally posted by Arrowmancer
. . .
If Evolution were a reality, Humans would have immune systems that would be unbreachable, we would be capable of surviving in any climate, our food consumption would be streamlined to the point that we would never require the need to dispose of internally produced toxic waste, we would be able to fly, have metal skeletons, and be dumber than a box of rocks.

What humans have 'evolved' into are weaker, more pathetic versions of the hardier species of the planet? I think not. Our minds have advanced a great deal and taken us away from the ability to survive or become more capable of surviving in our current environment. We have become suicidal. Evolution is at work in all other manner of beings in nature, but not in Humans. We have gone backwards in most evolutionary circles, our but our brains are inversely proportional to our physical evolution. The weaker we get, the smarter we become.

If evolution were existant for adaptability and survivalism, we would have claws, not fingernails. We would have wings, not arms. Can you honestly tell me that NATURE forced us to change so that we could use things that don't occur naturally?

If it were for the mental development of the race, why do we have Down's Syndrome? Savants? Murderers? Molesters? Lawyers?

You can't answer it, neither can I. Arguing about evolution is a fool's game because it exists, but it's complete nonsense. Even if evolutionary theory were correct, the evolution of man is something entirely different. We have reached the brink of racial suicide because of our advancements, but it's an all-or-nothing thing.

We evolved from Monkeys and Apes. Why are there still monkeys and apes? Thousands of years of evolution and we still have to use rolls of wadded up paper when we go to the bathroom. Why do we have to wear jackets outside when it's just a bit colder than it was yesterday? We have become puny!

Everything about our existence is contrary to the theory of natural evolution. If Natural Evolution existed, we wouldn't.
. . . .

Basically you are saying evolution causes perfection, humans are not perfect, therefore humans cannot have evolved.

Your argument does not hold because your first premise is incorrect.
Evolution is whatever changes get passed on and affect future generations.

If, for example, humanity consisted of two tribes, and each tribe kept sending its strongest warriors out to battle and and leaving the weakest behind, and if the battlers kept killing each other off, then you could have more offspring created by the weaker tribe members, and fewer by the strong ones.

This could lead to the future generations of these tribes becoming weaker.

Evolution is not always the survival of the fittest. Sometimes it's just the survival of the survivors.

Post removed due to its potential to revive an off-topic argument that has now died down. Apologies, all.