Evolution backed up by Hoaxes and Desperate Lies

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

You are delusional and a liar, because (and other posters) you ignored most of my comments.

edit on 22-8-2013 by JameSimon because: (no reason given)

He just ignore the ones he doesn't have an answer for, or the ones that he knows would collapse another argument.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

Originally posted by Pardon?


What they've also left out is that there are plenty of biological proteins which have D-amino acids rather than L-aminos.....


It really is like talking to bricks.

And yet you cannot comprehend the absolute impossibility of a simple 150 chain protein coming together by chance. Yes, keep pointing our the proof of evolution, you know you can't. Just keep repeating it's proven, it's proven, it's proven and it doesn't change the truth. Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig.

I wonder why we don't see these

I love it!! this is impossible yet a magical man in the sky is 100% the most likely scenario for everything we know. bravo! just when I thought you couldn't up your game!

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

And therein lies the root of your problem.
In your mind you believe you have addressed them but in reality you haven't.
All you keep on doing is posting incidences of where science got things wrong but which have been shown to be wrong by........wait for it........science.
That addresses nothing outside of your mind. Really.
There has been absolutely not one part of the current theory of evolution that you have proven wrong. Not one iota at all.
What you say will only be given credence by those of your ilk.
Anyone with any knowledge of science will dismiss you as a religious zealot who, to use your words, is desperately clinging on to the last vestiges of a dying religion and rather than extol said religion, will use every trick in the book in a vain attempt to block anything which dares to upset it.
Even if it means using tactics which go against that religion's core doctrines.
Congratulations.

reply to post by peter vlar





I found a picture of one!

Strange that he would talk about it as if it didn't or couldn't exist.

The entire premise of this argument which has captured and taken hostage the time and effort of creationists/IDers and atheist/scientific community alike is totally baseless and ridiculous. Or a big waste of that precious time. It's two groups arguing two sides of the same coin and neither side seems to be able/willing to recognize the inherent flaws in each of their own arguments. All the while pointing fingers at the other as if they have all the answers and the other side does not. It's a completely ignorant argument. A false dilemma.

Creationists and IDers despise evolution and want nothing more than to toss it out with yesterdays dirty diaper. Yet they don't have any way to account for the process which evolution seeks to describe. And worst of all they seemingly have no sense of realization that evolution doesn't necessarily disprove the idea of some sort of an ultimate creator/designer. They're completely arguing against the wrong thing!

On the other hand; evolutionists/scientists/atheists/whatever seem to be content with this ignorance since they realize that evolution has some pretty solid evidence. Even if their interpretations of it may vary and/or are not always correct, and/or rely on some important assumptions. The general idea of this phenomenon/process we call evolution is very apparent. At least in my opinion. I will concede that science has done a pretty fair job with it. BUT, they are not without their own flaws when arguing against a creationist/IDer.

Here's why- Both sides suffer from the same dilemma, from which they also find opportunity. This dilemma which moonlights as opportunity is the fact that we have no clue or evidence for what caused our universe, and what instituted the laws, rules, parameters by which it would function, and thus, give rise to the phenomenon we call Life. The opportunity arises when both sides attempt to use this convenience (or lack there of) as justification for coming up with their own "interesting" theories while at the same time degrading the other side.

I see no reason why proponents of M-Theory or String Theory or The Theory of the week should be absolved from the same criticism that creationist/IDer's face. It's all absurd and suffers from the same leaps of faith and logic!

I want to know what wrote the "software" of our universe and laid out the rules by which this "software" would run, then pressed execute. The Big Bang and Inflationary Theory leave a whole lot to be desired in this arena. But so do the ideas and angles behind ID or creationism. Point is we're not much closer to learning the genesis of our existence and the reasons why things are the way they are. Perhaps that's beyond us to ever know. But we sure as heck should not quit searching for answers. However I don't see how we can achieve our ultimate goal of finding out as long as these silly and pointless back and forth, ego driven debates rage on.

Who are we to say that some almighty intelligent entity or energy or whatever didn't devise this whole thing? And who are we to say that it did? Either way we all want to know, so we should find common ground in that notion, shouldn't we. Why are humans such pains in the a$$es?

Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' ?

Yeah, seems fitting here.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
I just love you all accusing me of ignoring your comments, when I have addressed them over and over. I do hope you enjoy the last vestiges of a theory proved wrong. It seems the tide is turning around the world against this unscientific theory of evolution.

I hope those really looking for truth will avail themselves of the evidences I have presented and do their own thinking. Amazingly, a child can understand this stuff, but you all can't because it goes against your humanist religion of evolution.

Um, no. You've either ignored them, distorted them or failed to understand them. You should write for Conservapedia. Oh wait, it's in the process of dying. Sorry!

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
The entire premise of this argument which has captured and taken hostage the time and effort of creationists/IDers and atheist/scientific community alike is totally baseless and ridiculous. Or a big waste of that precious time. It's two groups arguing two sides of the same coin and neither side seems to be able/willing to recognize the inherent flaws in each of their own arguments. All the while pointing fingers at the other as if they have all the answers and the other side does not. It's a completely ignorant argument. A false dilemma.

Creationists and IDers despise evolution and want nothing more than to toss it out with yesterdays dirty diaper. Yet they don't have any way to account for the process which evolution seeks to describe. And worst of all they seemingly have no sense of realization that evolution doesn't necessarily disprove the idea of some sort of an ultimate creator/designer. They're completely arguing against the wrong thing!

On the other hand; evolutionists/scientists/atheists/whatever seem to be content with this ignorance since they realize that evolution has some pretty solid evidence. Even if their interpretations of it may vary and/or are not always correct, and/or rely on some important assumptions. The general idea of this phenomenon/process we call evolution is very apparent. At least in my opinion. I will concede that science has done a pretty fair job with it. BUT, they are not without their own flaws when arguing against a creationist/IDer.

Here's why- Both sides suffer from the same dilemma, from which they also find opportunity. This dilemma which moonlights as opportunity is the fact that we have no clue or evidence for what caused our universe, and what instituted the laws, rules, parameters by which it would function, and thus, give rise to the phenomenon we call Life. The opportunity arises when both sides attempt to use this convenience (or lack there of) as justification for coming up with their own "interesting" theories while at the same time degrading the other side.

I see no reason why proponents of M-Theory or String Theory or The Theory of the week should be absolved from the same criticism that creationist/IDer's face. It's all absurd and suffers from the same leaps of faith and logic!

I want to know what wrote the "software" of our universe and laid out the rules by which this "software" would run, then pressed execute. The Big Bang and Inflationary Theory leave a whole lot to be desired in this arena. But so do the ideas and angles behind ID or creationism. Point is we're not much closer to learning the genesis of our existence and the reasons why things are the way they are. Perhaps that's beyond us to ever know. But we sure as heck should not quit searching for answers. However I don't see how we can achieve our ultimate goal of finding out as long as these silly and pointless back and forth, ego driven debates rage on.

Who are we to say that some almighty intelligent entity or energy or whatever didn't devise this whole thing? And who are we to say that it did? Either way we all want to know, so we should find common ground in that notion, shouldn't we. Why are humans such pains in the a$$es?

Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' ?

Yeah, seems fitting here.

edit on 22-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

That is complete gash. The other side of your coin is based on the supernatural. Complete and utter rubbish. Good luck finding investors to fund a project similar in size, scope and complexity to a hadron collider, for example, but with the aim of finding even a whiff of a supernatural entity. Pull your thumb out.

reply to post by helldiver


First, you have to give them a reason to believe a supernatural being exists. By the way, I'm confused as to why the term "supernatural" gets tossed around so much. Is it so hard to believe that there's a natural realm or dimension we have not yet breached? You say "supernatural" like anything that acts against the laws of physics is unnatural, rather than evidence of our own ignorance regarding those laws.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I see your point, by supernatural I only mean notions of religious magical fantasy. I would call the god or gods of any religion supernatural beings and would imply the same to a supreme creator.

I wouldn't intentionally class quantum physics and the like as supernatural.

reply to post by helldiver


You've completely misunderstood and/or ignored my post, and have proceeded to make an (incorrect) assumption about my position. All for the sake of trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Bravo for proving that you are the part of the problem re: the ignorance/ego issue as I've referenced.

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by helldiver

 

You've completely misunderstood and/or ignored my post, and have proceeded to make an (incorrect) assumption about my position. All for the sake of trying to sound like you know what you're talking about.

Bravo for proving that you are the part of the problem re: the ignorance/ego issue as I've referenced.

edit on 22-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)

Not quite. I dismissed your post the minute you admitted to being on the fence about a creator or, better still, an energy. Energy indeed!?? More mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity

We haven't heard much about Ida. The media went nuts over the discovery of "Ida" and lauded it as the most important find proving evolution. There was even a BBC documentary to push this new find, and it's all a bad science because of over eager evolutionists in their desperate desire to prove their theory. The reason I show this particular example is many in the evolutionist camp jump the gun and push out the next great find as if it proves their theory, and yet again, they were very wrong.

Evolution is far from proved.



Look how this was introduced to the world:




Fossil Ida: Extraordinary find is 'missing link' in human evolution Perfectly preserved fossil Ida, unveiled in New York today, provides unprecedented insight into our ancestry

Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The 47m-year-old primate – named Ida – has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters," said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. "The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo."

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.

source

Just a point of clarification here. Yes, I will agree with you that the gun was jumped. However there was a reason for them to rush to get the information out. Not a good one in my opinion or even in the opinion of Jørn Hurum one of the scientists working on this. Part of it was they had seen what happened when blogs picked up and blew out of proportion early reports of the archaic proto bird from China that turned out to be bunk. They wanted to address it both publicly and as scientifically as possible. It was a mistake to release data without verifying it for sure but it was the media who made the headlines regarding it being a missing human link. Not being in our family tree doesn't make it any less a remarkable discovery. One thing this is NOT though is a hoax. It was a rush to judgment and an error for certain but not a hoax and not by a long shot. you really love that word and ascribe it to anything anthropologically related when information changes. Why can't you understand that science often updates itself as new information is found or contradicted. clearly its not as infallible as your magic book is because nobody felt the need to change it for the past few thousand years. well except for jesus and his followers. And Muhammed. oh and Bab. but other than that your Hebrew/Christian text is nearly perfect.

As for Lucy being a knuckle dragging ape. Laughable. Its the most insane thing you keep repeating. At least you jumped off of Neanderthals back, but poor Lucy... she deserves better than your judgmental opinion. First, let us address a few items. you maintain your claim that because Lucy was an incomplete skeleton we just made it all up to push an agenda on the poor unsuspecting populace at large. That because there weren't ankles or feet theres no way to know how she walked. Have a seat because we're going to discuss anthropology 101. See, there are key features of a skeleton that even with partial or even very incomplete sleletons we can determine things like bipedalism from a few distinct key points. if you have only the base of the skull for example, l=such as with Lucy, we can determine the likelihood of bipedalism from the angle of the head and spine. TGhisis determined by the angle of the Foramen Magnum(the hole in the back of your head that the spinal cord runs through and attaches to the base of your brain to put it simply). From other parts of an incomplete skeleton we can determine bipedalism from things like the pelvis and sacrum as well as the knees. all of these items were present in Lucy. And that doesn't even get into the other more complete remains found of other Australopithecus afarensis, africanus, animensis et al.
my favorite part is close to the end though where you ask..."what do evolutionists admit today"Im going to raise my hand and answer "nothing" because there aren't any evolutionists. There are Anthropologists who study human culture and evolution and they say a lot.

Originally posted by helldiver

Not quite. I dismissed your post the minute you admitted to being on the fence about a creator or, better still, an energy. Energy indeed!?? More mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus.

Energy indeed. The universe is in fact just a bunch of mumbo jumbo, hocus pocus, and fancy math equations- with or without a supernatural entity.

I don't see the problem with adhering to uncertainty. We know about only 5% of what the universe is (maybe), with not even the faintest idea of the mechanism that caused it. So any attempt to assert what is or what isn't is spurious, if not completely dishonest. This goes for both agendas.

reply to post by PhotonEffect


I'm guessing the emphasis on the term 'energy' is because it gets thrown about and misused by the new agers, spiritualists and assorted nuts in this world in much the same way 'quantum' does.

To quote Brian Dunning,

"Here's a good test. When you hear the word "energy" used in a spiritual or paranormal sense, substitute the phrase "measurable work capability." Does the usage still make sense?"

Strictly speaking, no. No it doesn't..

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


And with that you have proven conclusively that you are a troll. Unless of course you finally have an answer for why you believe mutations cannot lead to speciation (ie evolution). Remember this question has nothing to do with abiogenesis, how the first cell formed, Phi, or any other concept you have thrown out in this thread. It only has to do with the mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating over many generations and leading to speciation.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

And with that you have proven conclusively that you are a troll. Unless of course you finally have an answer for why you believe mutations cannot lead to speciation (ie evolution). Remember this question has nothing to do with abiogenesis, how the first cell formed, Phi, or any other concept you have thrown out in this thread. It only has to do with the mechanism that prevents mutations from accumulating over many generations and leading to speciation.

I have posted at least 10 posts dealing with mutations. You probably don't watch any of the videos or look at the links. Not my fault you don't really care enough to hear experts with PhD's explain how mutations rarely benefit a species and that you lose DNA and not gain it. But have fun at ignoring the posts.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
I thought you were presenting a mutually exclusive choice - that something must either completely random or the product of design. This is a false choice and what I was referring to.

If that is not what you meant, then I am sorry.

I did refer to a case of mutual exclusivity, because it was strongly implied from the post I replied to, but in reality it's not that easy to apply all the conceptual aspect of randomness to the mutations. Things can appear randomly reorganized until someone realizes that there is actually causation. We can observe that radiation can affect DNA, but we may not be aware of the possibility that some cosmic radiation doesn't have a natural origin - that the radiation has a purpose of making special changes within DNA of species to design and execute new species. That's the idea behind the "intelligent design." Obviously, mainstream science cannot jump into a conclusion like that.
evolution.berkeley.edu...

reply to post by tremex


Just because we can observe order within chaos does not mean it has to have been caused by an intelligence. The planets and their moons sit in relatively stable orbits within our solar system due to the natural laws of motion and gravity.Tornados exhibit a natural symmetry thanks to these and the laws of fluid dynamics. Snowflakes exhibit six-fold radial symmetry thanks to the 6 sided structure of ice crystals.

If you want to call those natural laws and forces god then go ahead, but that does not necessarily make it so.

Originally posted by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
reply to post by tremex

 

Just because we can observe order within chaos does not mean it has to have been caused by an intelligence. The planets and their moons sit in relatively stable orbits within our solar system due to the natural laws of motion and gravity.Tornados exhibit a natural symmetry thanks to these and the laws of fluid dynamics. Snowflakes exhibit six-fold radial symmetry thanks to the 6 sided structure of ice crystals.

If you want to call those natural laws and forces god then go ahead, but that does not necessarily make it so.

A completely fair assessment in my opinion. But where is the scientific community on how these natural laws came to be and why the forces acting on/within the universe give way to self-organizing order and symmetry?

The earth produces an infinite number of unique 6-sided crystalline snowflakes when conditions allow. The snowflake is a great example of the physical manifestation of the invisible natural laws at work. Perfectly symmetric every time. Evolution, guided by these same natural laws, albeit in different combinations, also produces symmetry. There's an underlying mechanism that fuels change and adaptation. Evolution is a natural problem solver on some level. We can say it's naturally occurring, but what does that even mean? Not to mention, that's a lazy explanation.

Do you know if physicists/biologists/whomever understand why the natural laws of this universe abide by these particular characteristics? What are the inherent properties that dictate these types of interactions which are so prevalent in our universe, and how did they come to be? Obviously saying god did it does not suffice. Because even we did acknowledge that, we'd still have to ask, since it's the human way, "well how and why did god do it?"

And of course feel free to replace "god" with anything else- Mtheory, big bang, designer etc etc. They all still have to answer the same questions...

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


It is true that most mutations are not advantageous or deleterious. However if your "experts" are claiming new information cannot be added to DNA then they are either lying or completely ignorant of what mutations there are. My background is not in biology. In college I took an intro to bio course, a course on behavioral genetics, and that's it. Despite this even I know that two major types of mutations are insertion and duplication, both of which add base pairs to a chromosome. So are your so called experts liars or do they lack all credibility because they don't even know basic information in regards to mutations?