It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
reply to post by vasaga
 


Ahh yes that old cherry...Arguments from incredulity, Irreducible complexity and complex specified information.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Do you not have anything better to do than spread disinformation on a conspiracy site?

Please read this link and come back when you know how to debate without using logical fallacy's.
Lol.. You're telling me about logical fallacies, while you just poisoned the well? Also very funny how all those answers in those links are nothing more than a bunch of fallacies. It's the main thing you neo-darwinists thrive on. Dishonest to the core. And I'm not the one spreading disinformation. I'm spreading information against dogmatic group-think masquerading as science.

I'll just leave this here..


"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001)
edit on 21-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Are you kidding with this debunked nonsense? Behe's argument is nothing but another flawed watch maker argument.

www.talkorigins.org...

Another article that burns your strawman to the ground.


Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.


www.talkorigins.org...



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Same old same old. Avoiding the main issue.. Since you're on a quote fest, let me give you one article, that shows how you people have become just as extreme as what you're pretending to fight...


‘ What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?’: Leading atheist branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism

Here's an atheist, who's not brainwashed, and sees things for how they are. No offense, but all you people on here that constantly attack me, are nothing but sheep. I don't want to be mean, but you've lost your own mind by following the herd, rather than thinking logically for yourself. A few interesting excerpts..


The impassioned shunning of Prof. Nagel parallels the experience of some climate-change skeptics. By the time it became a political mega-issue a decade ago, environmentalism had come to resemble religion, complete with myths of the Fall and the Apocalypse, pilgrimages, iconography, scripture, prophecies, tithes and Al Gore as a secular saint.

Now evolutionary science, in its opposition to creationism, is staking out a similar position in the culture wars. In the absence of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins is emerging as the anti-pope of a New Atheism, whose orthodoxy inspires the brutal treatment of heretics, even as it lures adherents into a simplistic, unreflective, fanciful faith in its own methods.



By putting physics at the top of a scientific hierarchy, he argues, modern Darwinism offers a dogmatic system of thought that is intoxicating precisely because it offers the illusion of freeing us from religion.



“For a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works,” he writes in the book, which is subtitled “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.”

“I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program [about the origin of life] as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.”



He sees this trend in the shunning of people who offer plausible arguments from probability theory that the Earth is not old enough for some of the genetic evolution story to be accurate. As an aside, he makes a plea for civility on a field that, like environmentalism, is known for its shrill polarity.



He praises intelligent design proponents Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer as “iconoclasts” whose ideas “do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair.”



Calling the book “an instrument of mischief,” two critics wrote the ambitious subtitle “seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues.”

This has been the common intellectual response – the friend of my creationist enemy is also my enemy.



“In the present climate of a dominant scientific naturalism, heavily dependent on speculative Darwinian explanations of practically everything, and armed to the teeth against attacks from religion, I have thought it useful to speculate about possible alternatives.”

When he puts it like that, it seems odd such dry philosophy has elicited such a storm of denunciation. As in religion, though, the heretics provide the fuel, but it is the faithful who light the fire.



For the record, here's another interesting thing...
Lifelong atheist changes mind about divine creator

“I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”



Mr. Flew told the Associated Press that his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution, but doubts that it can explain the ultimate origins of life.


And most importantly:

if his belief upsets people, well “that’s too bad,” Mr. Flew said. “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.


You people only look at evidence that fit your agenda to shut everything down that even remotely points in the direction of religion, even when it has nothing to do with it. And not even by reason, but by slander. And the sad thing is, you believe you're doing something good for the world...
edit on 21-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Your not fooling anyone with your false claims.

Your agenda exposed.


CMI could have read the literature and have come up with a series of interesting and challenging questions based on what evolutionary scientists are presently investigating - although that would have involved some honest research and understanding of the subject. But instead of concentrating on these real questions, CMI employs the typical creationist strategy of dissembly and deflection by perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the theory of evolution, all while making money selling religious tracts, t-shirts, buttons, hats, bumper stickers, coffee cups, and tote bags.


rationalwiki.org...



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
Your not fooling anyone with your false claims.

Your agenda exposed.


CMI could have read the literature and have come up with a series of interesting and challenging questions based on what evolutionary scientists are presently investigating - although that would have involved some honest research and understanding of the subject. But instead of concentrating on these real questions, CMI employs the typical creationist strategy of dissembly and deflection by perpetuating myths and misconceptions about the theory of evolution, all while making money selling religious tracts, t-shirts, buttons, hats, bumper stickers, coffee cups, and tote bags.


rationalwiki.org...
Really? There is one very simple scientific question. How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?


Isn't that what the theory of evolution is proposing? When you can answer that, I will accept neo-darwinism as being true. I wish you good luck.

Edit:
And oh btw... Same thing again... Putting people in a creationist box. I JUST FKING QUOTED AN ATHEIST. Goes to show your selective reading and your dishonesty. And then you say I'm spreading disinformation... You should be ashamed of yourself.

I will be leaving now. Circular arguments quickly grow old.
edit on 21-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Really? There is one very simple scientific question. How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?

Hasty generalizations never get old eh? How DOESN'T natural selection with random mutations allow it? What is the mechanism that prevents cells from working together within a billion year period on an incredibly harsh early earth environment? And seriously, you are still calling modern synthesis "neo-darwinism"? Modern synthesis is still very well documented and backed up by scientific fact. And no, all atheists aren't evolution followers and vice versa. Belief in god or ID is quite irrelevant to the topic of evolution.
edit on 21-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Evolution deniers crack me up, whether creationists, ID advocates, alien interventionists, the ghost of christmas past or whatever else. They'll never fail to find a way to give me a good laugh when they claim to know more than a scientist about a field of science that he has studied his entire life. Newsflash! Evolution is compatible with your religious views, whatever they are. There's no reason to be at war with it. Let it be. Is it really difficult to consider god using evolution as a tool, or being the first cause, or having a designer that works WITH evolution? There's no reason to fight it. The ones that do are usually bible literalists that have been home schooled by their parents and taught ridiculous things as facts. It's usually not even their fault, it's the fault of the parents, but it's up to them to break the cycle of ignorance.

Science works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be flying in airplanes, riding on trains, cars, global networks, and using cell phones. It's reliable. That's why I say leave the science to the scientists. If you want to believe ID, then be my guest, but to come on a website and act like its a fact while at the same time arguing against science it only makes you guys look bad. As I said above, there isn't an evolution debate. There are only stubborn people. Even if science doesn't have it 100% correct with evolution, who cares? Let it do its thing, we'll eventually learn more, either way. That's the purpose and it's a major staple in our modern technological society. People going against it are not doing their cause justice in the least, especially while using these wonderful products of modern science known as computers.
edit on 21-5-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 

How natural selection among – not with – random mutations allows single-celled organisms to evolve into conscious human beings is precisely what is explained by the theory of evolution.

You already know this perfectly well, just as you know perfectly well that your ancient counterarguments against evolution have been debunked in this forum more times than you can count. You don't even believe them yourself any longer, but you keep posting, don't you, hoping they will still deceive others.

Why?

:shk:



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Of course we evolved from lower species... If we didn't than why did it take so long for us to appear? But that doesn't mean God doesn't exist either. We are all God, the entirety of God.

But when the evolutionists say, "we're going to find out where that singularity came from", do they honestly think that that would make things any clearer? If X is the source of the singularity, what is the source of X? And what is the source of that source? And the source of that source? This would turn into an infinite digression of source, which ultimately proves existence has no beginning, and therefore, no end.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
You guys are really good at keeping me here aren't you? I am forced to tackle dishonesty when I see it. And the fact that the same nonsense arguments get the stars shows how you people have become a herd that lost your individuality. But whatever. Forget that, let's keep going...


Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by vasaga
Really? There is one very simple scientific question. How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?

Hasty generalizations never get old eh? How DOESN'T natural selection with random mutations allow it? What is the mechanism that prevents cells from working together within a billion year period on an incredibly harsh early earth environment?
And here it starts.. If you ask a Christian to prove that God exists, and they reply with "you can't show that he doesn't", you all trample him, saying it's up to him. But, when I ask you the same thing for the alternative perspective, then suddenly, the negative reply has value... You suddenly turn the question around. Yeah no. It doesn't work that way. It is up to you to prove that it does, not up to anyone else to prove that it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins says that everything in biology shows the appearance of design. If you come across something that shows the appearance of design, it's up to the one claiming that it came about naturally, to show HOW it did that, with extraordinary evidence. But all I get in here is things like this:


Originally posted by Barcs
And seriously, you are still calling modern synthesis "neo-darwinism"? Modern synthesis is still very well documented and backed up by scientific fact.
Empty claims of how everything is backed up by mountains of scientific data that no one ever shows. Link me.


Originally posted by Barcs
And no, all atheists aren't evolution followers and vice versa. Belief in god or ID is quite irrelevant to the topic of evolution.
Define what you mean by 'evolution' in this sentence.


Originally posted by Barcs
Evolution deniers crack me up, whether creationists, ID advocates, alien interventionists, the ghost of christmas past or whatever else.
Emotional response, rather than rational one. Goes to show why you never get where I'm coming from. Too busy ridiculing. And by the way. I'm not an "evolution denier". Mutations do happen, variations do happen, common descent makes sense, natural selection works. There is one single issue I have problem with, and it's the question above that you failed to reply to, by turning it around and wanting me to prove a negative.


Originally posted by Barcs
They'll never fail to find a way to give me a good laugh when they claim to know more than a scientist about a field of science that he has studied his entire life.
Yeah... But when I quote something from an actual scientist, you all ignore it, don't see it, pretend it isn't there... Aren't you then doing the same thing? Let me refresh your memory for a second...

Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001):
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Tell me. Do you know more than him? Is he wrong? If so, how? I'm eagerly awaiting your response.


Originally posted by Barcs
Newsflash! Evolution is compatible with your religious views, whatever they are.
I don't have religious views.


Originally posted by Barcs
There's no reason to be at war with it. Let it be.
Why are you so at war with religion, that you put people in religious boxes without them being there?


Originally posted by Barcs
Is it really difficult to consider god using evolution as a tool, or being the first cause, or having a designer that works WITH evolution? There's no reason to fight it. The ones that do are usually bible literalists that have been home schooled by their parents and taught ridiculous things as facts. It's usually not even their fault, it's the fault of the parents, but it's up to them to break the cycle of ignorance.
I agree there.. Wow. I'm agreeing with Barcs. Must be end of the world or something...

To be continued....
edit on 22-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Science works. If it didn't, we wouldn't be flying in airplanes, riding on trains, cars, global networks, and using cell phones. It's reliable. That's why I say leave the science to the scientists.
No disagreements there, however, questioning is also a main part of science, and should not be shoved aside, especially when fanatism is involved.


Originally posted by Barcs
If you want to believe ID, then be my guest, but to come on a website and act like its a fact while at the same time arguing against science it only makes you guys look bad.
I don't just believe in ID. I came to it, by logic. The real belief here is that science really already knows and has answered all the doubts that people have about evolution and its limits. I don't care how I look. I only care about the truth. And if that means speaking against a million people, I will do it, even if they think I'm wrong.


Originally posted by Barcs
As I said above, there isn't an evolution debate.
Oh really? What about the two recent articles I copied above? What about the quote I just copied to you? If there is no debate, why does a philosopher, arguably the best debaters in the world, get attacked for sharing his concerns on the limits of evolution? If there really was no debate and everything was already answered, ignoring, or simply showing where his argument fails would be a lot easier. But it doesn't happen. All that happens is slander.


Originally posted by Barcs
There are only stubborn people.
No. There are free thinkers, and there are sheeple. The sheeple call the free thinkers stubborn when the free thinkers refuse to conform to the norm.


Originally posted by Barcs
Even if science doesn't have it 100% correct with evolution, who cares? Let it do its thing, we'll eventually learn more, either way. That's the purpose and it's a major staple in our modern technological society. People going against it are not doing their cause justice in the least, especially while using these wonderful products of modern science known as computers.
No one is going against the scientific method. People are going against the dogmas that modern day science has adopted. Science no longer follows the evidence wherever it leads. They follow the evidence that conforms to whatever paradigm has already been established.


Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by vasaga
 

How natural selection among – not with – random mutations allows single-celled organisms to evolve into conscious human beings is precisely what is explained by the theory of evolution.
Ok. If you're so sure of that.. Explain it to me then. Because I don't get it.


Originally posted by Astyanax
You already know this perfectly well,
I know that's what it's supposed to explain, but does it actually do it?

Originally posted by Astyanax
just as you know perfectly well that your ancient counterarguments against evolution have been debunked in this forum more times than you can count.
No one has debunked my arguments. My arguments have been ignored and slandered. Go above, and read which person has replied directly to the excerpts I took from the articles. Yes. I actually quote people. Go look. Not a single one. And that's how it always goes here. People turn to ridicule and slander, and ignore the arguments themselves completely. And you're telling my arguments have been debunked? You can also go through all my old posts, you will not find those arguments or links in prior posts. So don't pretend like I'm doing the same thing over and over. I constantly evolve my arguments. You are the ones that are stuck in your old views.. Repeating the same things, expecting me to bow down to your dirty feet of so-called science.


Originally posted by Astyanax
You don't even believe them yourself any longer, but you keep posting, don't you, hoping they will still deceive others.

Why?

:shk:
Honest question... How do you know what I do or do not believe?

For the record, just like mr. Antony Flew of one of the articles I pasted above, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence leads towards an intelligent agent being required. How much influence it really has/had is up for debate. The nature of the intelligent agent is irrelevant, but, it definitely is not a tyrannic God like the Abrahamic one.

I'm not some evil sociopath trying to deceive people. I'm trying to make people understand why that intelligent agent is required. But, they are too busy telling me I'm wrong to notice...
edit on 22-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Originally posted by Astyanax
How natural selection among – not with – random mutations allows single-celled organisms to evolve into conscious human beings is precisely what is explained by the theory of evolution.


Originally posted by vasaga
Ok. If you're so sure of that.. Explain it to me then. Because I don't get it.

I am happy to explain things at any length to people who really want to know. You are not one of those people. Allow me to recommend this web site. There are also any number of excellent books on the subject.


Originally posted by vasaga
No one has debunked my arguments. My arguments have been ignored and slandered. Go above, and read which person has replied directly to the excerpts...

I suppose other people besides myself are tired of reading and replying to the same old thing.


Don't pretend like I'm doing the same thing over and over. I constantly evolve my arguments.

No, they are the same old arguments. The garnish may vary, but the gristle underneath is always the same. Your argument is the argument from incredulity. It is as old as the hills.


Honest question... How do you know what I do or do not believe?

If someone still believes, after years of debate, that evolution by natural selection is not a credible theory explaining the evolution of species, then they must be very obtuse or highly motivated to deny the facts. I am paying you the compliment of assuming that you are neither, but are continuing to argue against the theory of evolution for some good reason of your own. I am asking what that reason is, because I'm curious. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.


I'm trying to make people understand why (an) intelligent agent is required. But, they are too busy telling me I'm wrong to notice...

I suppose that's because an intelligent agent isn't required. It's a bit boring when you've explained something to somebody for the hundredth time and they just keep coming back with the same old line.


edit on 23/5/13 by Astyanax because: of bad formatting.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
But when the evolutionists say, "we're going to find out where that singularity came from", do they honestly think that that would make things any clearer? If X is the source of the singularity, what is the source of X? And what is the source of that source? And the source of that source? This would turn into an infinite digression of source, which ultimately proves existence has no beginning, and therefore, no end.


Is "evolutionist" a person who doesn't deny the fact of evolution? Or it is perhaps a scientist who studies evolution? What does either have to do with singularity? Isn't that the stuff of physicists?

edit on 23-5-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
And here it starts.. If you ask a Christian to prove that God exists, and they reply with "you can't show that he doesn't", you all trample him, saying it's up to him. But, when I ask you the same thing for the alternative perspective, then suddenly, the negative reply has value... You suddenly turn the question around. Yeah no. It doesn't work that way. It is up to you to prove that it does, not up to anyone else to prove that it doesn't.

We aren't talking about existence. We are talking about details within a theory. I'm not saying evolution exists because you can't prove it wrong. I'm asking you WHY it seems so ridiculously implausible to you? What is the issue? When you say something like "I just can't see how single cells turn into a fully conscious sentient being", it DEFINES the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. You are taking the very beginning and the very end (at this point in time) in a multi billion year process and just shrugging your shoulders while ignoring everything in the middle. Which part is implausible to you? Details would be nice.


Originally posted by Barcs
Empty claims of how everything is backed up by mountains of scientific data that no one ever shows. Link me.


www.talkorigins.org...

I post this link for evolution deniers all the time. Not once has it ever even been attempted to be debunked. Maybe you can be the first. And don't just dismiss the source, debunk the scientific data within it with references and where it is wrong, and why.


Define what you mean by 'evolution' in this sentence.

Biological evolution aka modern synthesis, the process in which we are debating. When you quote an atheist and go "OMG, an ATHEIST even said he doubts evolution", why should it matter? I've met atheists that don't believe evolution, and I've met theists that do believe it. It's not an atheistic principle.


Originally posted by Barcs
Emotional response, rather than rational one. Goes to show why you never get where I'm coming from. Too busy ridiculing. And by the way. I'm not an "evolution denier". Mutations do happen, variations do happen, common descent makes sense, natural selection works. There is one single issue I have problem with, and it's the question above that you failed to reply to, by turning it around and wanting me to prove a negative.

That wasn't directed at you, hence why I put it in a separate post. It was more toward the OP and supporters of his faulty arguments. I never asked you to prove a negative. I asked you to explain where the problem is without fallacies.


How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being

Your original quote. It's a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. Look it up.


Originally posted by Barcs
Yeah... But when I quote something from an actual scientist, you all ignore it, don't see it, pretend it isn't there... Aren't you then doing the same thing? Let me refresh your memory for a second...

Because opinions from scientists are not facts. Modern synthesis is a scientific theory, not just an opinion from a scientist.


Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001):
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Tell me. Do you know more than him? Is he wrong? If so, how? I'm eagerly awaiting your response.


OMG, you're asking me to prove a negative.
I can't even find a wiki on this guy, let alone any way to verify his credentials. Just because the dude wrote a book, doesn't mean he doesn't have an ulterior agenda. Quote mines don't prove anything.


Originally posted by Barcs
Why are you so at war with religion, that you put people in religious boxes without them being there?

Did you not read the OP? His views are clearly motivated by his faith in god. I'm not at war with religion, only ignorance of science. It's just that religious folks are the prime culprits of evolution denial. Again, this post was not directed at you. If it was, I wouldn't have separated it into another post. If you are not an evolution denier, then it's not aimed at you. You seem to accept evolution, but not as a whole, if I'm understanding correctly.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Oh really? What about the two recent articles I copied above? What about the quote I just copied to you? If there is no debate, why does a philosopher, arguably the best debaters in the world, get attacked for sharing his concerns on the limits of evolution? If there really was no debate and everything was already answered, ignoring, or simply showing where his argument fails would be a lot easier. But it doesn't happen. All that happens is slander.

Are those articles based on research papers with scientific data or are they people just stating opinions? You seem to like posting a lot of opinions and using the appeal to authority fallacy to justify them. If there is no experiment or anything to back their opinion up, it's not scientifically valid, regardless of who says it.


Originally posted by Barcs
No. There are free thinkers, and there are sheeple. The sheeple call the free thinkers stubborn when the free thinkers refuse to conform to the norm.

Please. I AM a freethinker. ID is possible, but it lacks proof or merit in the scientific community. I just don't believe anything willy nilly. I have standards for proof, and if they aren't meant I ain't buying it.


Originally posted by Barcs
No one is going against the scientific method. People are going against the dogmas that modern day science has adopted. Science no longer follows the evidence wherever it leads. They follow the evidence that conforms to whatever paradigm has already been established.

WHAT DOGMA? Please quote this dogma you are referring to. What scientific evidence leads to intelligent design without inserting numerous assumptions?



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I am happy to explain things at any length to people who really want to know. You are not one of those people.
Tell me again how you know that exactly...?


Originally posted by Astyanax
Allow me to recommend this web site. There are also any number of excellent books on the subject.

Funny, how that link is basically saying exactly what I am saying. But you recommend it, but bash me... Anything wrong with this picutre...?? Look under The Big Issues, it says this:


All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors. Biologists are not arguing about these conclusions. But they are trying to figure out how evolution happens, and that's not an easy job. It involves collecting data, proposing hypotheses, creating models, and evaluating other scientists' work. These are all activities that we can, and should, hold up to our checklist and ask the question: are they doing science?


Bold part: Everyone on here pretend they already did that, while they haven't.
Underlined part: This is exactly the point. Some things are masqueraded as science while they aren't.

In case you forgot, let me quote myself:

Originally posted by vasaga
And by the way. I'm not an "evolution denier". Mutations do happen, variations do happen, common descent makes sense, natural selection works. There is one single issue I have problem with, and it's the question above that you failed to reply to, by turning it around and wanting me to prove a negative.

The question:

Originally posted by vasaga
How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being, whether it's quadrillions of years or millions of years or any other time frame?



Originally posted by Astyanax
I suppose other people besides myself are tired of reading and replying to the same old thing.
Maybe you should change your approach then.


Originally posted by Astyanax
No, they are the same old arguments. The garnish may vary, but the gristle underneath is always the same. Your argument is the argument from incredulity. It is as old as the hills.
So being skeptic is no longer allowed then? I must just blindly accept everything you people spout on here.. Is that it?


Originally posted by Astyanax
If someone still believes, after years of debate, that evolution by natural selection is not a credible theory explaining the evolution of species,
Stop right there. What exactly do you mean by 'evolution of species'? I explained clearly which parts I'm fine with, and which part I'm skeptical towards... Read above again.


Originally posted by Astyanax
then they must be very obtuse or highly motivated to deny the facts. I am paying you the compliment of assuming that you are neither, but are continuing to argue against the theory of evolution for some good reason of your own. I am asking what that reason is, because I'm curious. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.
That reason is, that I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that it can happen by naturalistic means. A person who conjectured that Mount Rushmore was actually the result of unintelligent forces, would bear the substantial burden of proof the claim demanded. In this case, the positive evidence for design would be there for all to see in the purposeful arrangements of parts to produce the faces. Remember that there is no one that says that biological systems do not show appearance of design. Everyone admits that they do, even Richard Dawkins. Any putative evidence for the claim that the images graved at Mount Rushmore were actually the result of unintelligent processes, would have to clearly show that the postulated unintelligent process could indeed do the job. In the absence of such a clear demonstration, any person would be rationally justified to prefer the design explanation. As of now, such a clear demonstration is lacking. Note that what I just said, is supported by the link that you just provided. Until the how is explained, there is no reason to assume that position, other than fanatism. It would be like saying "it could have happened by X so it really is X and we should all follow X", which is a horrendous fallacy.


Originally posted by Astyanax
I suppose that's because an intelligent agent isn't required. It's a bit boring when you've explained something to somebody for the hundredth time and they just keep coming back with the same old line.
Maybe the explanation was not good enough or insufficient to justify the proposed conclusion.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
We aren't talking about existence. We are talking about details within a theory. I'm not saying evolution exists because you can't prove it wrong. I'm asking you WHY it seems so ridiculously implausible to you? What is the issue? When you say something like "I just can't see how single cells turn into a fully conscious sentient being", it DEFINES the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. You are taking the very beginning and the very end (at this point in time) in a multi billion year process and just shrugging your shoulders while ignoring everything in the middle. Which part is implausible to you? Details would be nice.
Isn't that the scope of evolution? From the first cell to today? Why is it outrageous to expect that to be explained? Assuming that little events that take milliseconds in the middle, literally can account for the whole thing, THAT is actually the hast generalization... We're expecting small variations to account for billions of years. Look at the definition of hasty generalization:

The size of the sample is too small to support the conclusion.

Source


Originally posted by Barcs
www.talkorigins.org...

I post this link for evolution deniers all the time. Not once has it ever even been attempted to be debunked. Maybe you can be the first. And don't just dismiss the source, debunk the scientific data within it with references and where it is wrong, and why.
Thanks. I will read it.


Originally posted by Barcs
That wasn't directed at you, hence why I put it in a separate post. It was more toward the OP and supporters of his faulty arguments. I never asked you to prove a negative. I asked you to explain where the problem is without fallacies.
My apologies then.


Originally posted by Barcs

How does only natural selection with random mutations allow for a single celled organism to become a fully fledges conscious human being

Your original quote. It's a logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. Look it up.
I know my fallacies




Originally posted by Barcs
Because opinions from scientists are not facts. Modern synthesis is a scientific theory, not just an opinion from a scientist.
So... Scientific theories are independent from statements about that theory from scientists? A statement about what we have or we don't have, like the one of this Franklin guy, is not really an opinion. Either he is wrong, because there are detailed accounts, or he's right because there's no detailed accounts.


Originally posted by Barcs

Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in "The Way of the Cell" (Oxford University Press, 2001):
"We must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Tell me. Do you know more than him? Is he wrong? If so, how? I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

OMG, you're asking me to prove a negative.
Really? The question essentially is: Could you show me detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system? That, is not proving a negative. Proving a negative is for example, me trying to prove that you do not have a baseball. I can only prove that you do. Only the presence of something can be proven. Absence can not be proven, since the possibility of that thing being there still exists, while we didn't detect it. That's why the requests of Christians to prove the absence of God is completely ridiculous. They must prove their tyrannic God is watching us all to the rest of us. Until then, we don't have to believe them.


Originally posted by Barcs
I can't even find a wiki on this guy, let alone any way to verify his credentials. Just because the dude wrote a book, doesn't mean he doesn't have an ulterior agenda. Quote mines don't prove anything.
Easy to verify his credentials. Look for any paper with his name. I used Google Scholar.


Originally posted by Barcs
Did you not read the OP? His views are clearly motivated by his faith in god. I'm not at war with religion, only ignorance of science. It's just that religious folks are the prime culprits of evolution denial. Again, this post was not directed at you. If it was, I wouldn't have separated it into another post. If you are not an evolution denier, then it's not aimed at you. You seem to accept evolution, but not as a whole, if I'm understanding correctly.
Yes, you understand it correctly.



posted on May, 23 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Are those articles based on research papers with scientific data or are they people just stating opinions?
Hm.. So according to you there is:
- Research papers with scientific data
- Opinions

Are you saying those are the only two options? Can there be no true statement without scientific data? I would disagree, and humbly suggest that statements without scientific data can still be true, without being opinions. If I never knew about the Maya, and I go to Mexico and see weird patterns of writings on a wall, I can easily make a true statement saying that someone wrote it, despite my lack of understanding of the language, despite me knowing nothing about the Maya. I don't need scientific papers with data for it, nor is it an opinion. It's a simple observation to logical conclusion. The things I quote, generally fall into that category. Of course, if you disagree that these statements are possible, we have an issue to resolve xD


Originally posted by Barcs
You seem to like posting a lot of opinions and using the appeal to authority fallacy to justify them. If there is no experiment or anything to back their opinion up, it's not scientifically valid, regardless of who says it.
I post them that way, because I assume that people look up to scientists, and they are more credible, thus they would give my arguments a bit more weight. It's not because I believe in any authority, but I believe people here do. Why else would anyone follow Dawkins lol xD There must be someone here that looks up to him, without understanding anything about evolution. Anyway.. No one here has a problem shoving someone aside if he turns out to be a Christian. If I mention Behe in here, people go nuts, even if the whole article would contain zero words regarding religion. It would be shoved aside without being considered. But, if I use scientists, people will hopefully at least read them, and question.


Originally posted by Barcs
Please. I AM a freethinker. ID is possible, but it lacks proof or merit in the scientific community. I just don't believe anything willy nilly. I have standards for proof, and if they aren't meant I ain't buying it.
Fair enough. I don't think it lacks merit, I just think the scientific community is resistant to the idea, because the religious people will use it as leverage for their tyrannic God.


Originally posted by Barcs
WHAT DOGMA? Please quote this dogma you are referring to.
Dogma might be too strong a word. Maybe it's more passable if I call them non-investigated assumptions. Basically, science has held some things as true for so long, that they forgot to look if it really was true in the first place.


Originally posted by Barcs
What scientific evidence leads to intelligent design without inserting numerous assumptions?
Ironically the same evidence that lead people to conclude that Darwinism works. Let me give you an example. We have a resistance to malaria due to a genetic mutation. A person is born with one abnormal allele of the hemoglobin beta gene. Despite the specific mechanics being unknown, this allows people to have a high survival rate against malaria. This is often seen as one of the prime examples of mutations through natural selection, improving a species.

You would think this is all a good thing. The problem is this... If people get two abnormal alleles, they get sickle cell anemia. To explain what that means... Say you have an environment where there's a lot of malaria infections. The ones without the genetic mutation die, the ones with the genetic mutation survive. This means, more and more people will have the trait and pass them on to their children. When the parents both pass their single abnormal allele to their child, the child will get two abnormal alleles, giving the child sickle cell anemia. Over time, everyone that could survive malaria, will instead have sickle cell anemia. For information about sickle cell anemia, click here.

Maybe a mutation allowed you to survive malaria, which is a good thing, but that same mutation will destroy the species if it gets spread around. It will cause a whole lot of other problems for the individuals. You win against malaria, but lose not one, but many advantages in other areas. If it wasn't for the treatments we developed, most people with this disease wouldn't live past their twenties... This leads me to conclude that, despite the ones without the trait dying by malaria, their bodies generally work better than the ones with the mutation. Despite the mutation appearing beneficial, it really is degenerative. Would it be weird to conclude that species degenerate by mutations through natural selection, given that this is seen as one of the best examples of improving a species?
edit on 23-5-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 


Tell me again how you know (that I am not interested in learning how evolution works) exactly...?

It is patent in every sentence you write, including the entirety of the post here quoted.


Look under The Big Issues, it says this:

This is a perfect example of the deceitfulness and casuistry that is so characteristic of your participation in this forum. Quoting that section out of context, you make it appear that a UCLA Berkely web site is claiming that scientists don't know how evolution happens. Nothing could be further from the truth. I referred you to that web site if you wished to learn about evolution; instead, you fine-combed it for something that would support your anti-evolutionary propaganda campaign and posted that. What a master-stroke! You must be well pleased with yourself.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Isn't that the scope of evolution? From the first cell to today? Why is it outrageous to expect that to be explained? Assuming that little events that take milliseconds in the middle, literally can account for the whole thing, THAT is actually the hast generalization... We're expecting small variations to account for billions of years. Look at the definition of hasty generalization:


Come on dude. Stop twisting my words around, and crediting me with things I did not say or even insinuate. It's getting old. Yes, it is the scope, but it's not everything there is to know about the theory. You are ignoring millions, if not billions of separate transitions. Single cells did not transform into a conscious human being. They transformed first into something that would seem very simple and it very gradually changed. If you are going to nitpick modern synthesis, you need to explain which part of the theory you take issue with. Which transition are you referring to? You are just sticking your finger in your ears and singing so loud you can't hear me. I can't believe you still don't see how that is a hasty generalization. Keyword, HASTY. I'm not over simplifying anything, I'm asking you to be specific. It is intellectually dishonest to use a fallacy as your prime argument. You are just saying you don't believe the whole thing and calling it a day and you haven't referenced the actual theory once yet.


Either he is wrong, because there are detailed accounts, or he's right because there's no detailed accounts.

Everything in life isn't black and white. He gave his opinion, and that's that. If he cited research, it might give his opinion credibility, but he didn't.


Originally posted by Barcs
Really? The question essentially is: Could you show me detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system? That, is not proving a negative.

You asked me to prove him wrong. Yes, that is proving a negative.



Are you saying those are the only two options? Can there be no true statement without scientific data? I would disagree, and humbly suggest that statements without scientific data can still be true, without being opinions. If I never knew about the Maya, and I go to Mexico and see weird patterns of writings on a wall, I can easily make a true statement saying that someone wrote it, despite my lack of understanding of the language, despite me knowing nothing about the Maya. I don't need scientific papers with data for it, nor is it an opinion. It's a simple observation to logical conclusion. The things I quote, generally fall into that category. Of course, if you disagree that these statements are possible, we have an issue to resolve xD

Again, I never said it was impossible or that it was definitely wrong. I said it was an opinion, not backed up by any facts or research.


I post them that way, because I assume that people look up to scientists, and they are more credible, thus they would give my arguments a bit more weight.

That is the appeal to authority fallacy. I already explained it. Science is based on research and facts obtained through experiments. A scientist is somebody that works in a certain field of scientific research. He can have an incorrect opinion just like anybody else, but the scientific research is what speaks for itself.


Dogma might be too strong a word. Maybe it's more passable if I call them non-investigated assumptions. Basically, science has held some things as true for so long, that they forgot to look if it really was true in the first place.

For example?

I don't see how your Malaria argument has anything to do with science supporting ID. Genetic mutations are not always beneficial, why would you expect this? Of course species have mutations that lead to their extinction. Extinction is a very big part of evolution, and environments change all the time. If certain humans are resistant to Malaria with the risk of sickle cell, and Malaria becomes a non factor because of environmental changes (aka changes in medicine or treatment) then the mutation becomes irrelevant and will end up hurting the ones who have it, more than it helps them. But then again, mutations will keep happening, environments keep changing, and that entire situation could end up changing.. or the ones with the mutation could simply die out while the ones without it prevail. That's evolution 101.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join