Evolution is Wrong?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I have no problem with evolution, or your statements about it with the exception of your out of hand dismissal of anything that doesn’t fit into your box. That is why I call you a bigot in this arena.[/quote]

What exactly is it that doesn’t fit in my “box” that can be considered part of the evolutionary theory? In order to not be a bigot, do you have to seriously entertain every possibility no matter what the evidence? For instance do the flying spaghetti monster and pink tea cup theories have to be carefully evaluated in order to not be a bigot?

First of all, you are incorrect in assuming that science would have answered the question of abiogenesis already if they could have. Just because something is hard to understand or replicate does not mean it is impossible. If it were done tomorrow, how would that change your current view?

I do not think it is dogma to disregard supernatural explanations of the universe out of hand. By definition, they cannot add anything to the body of knowledge. If you choose to believe in superstition fine, but there has been no proof of any higher power to date. If there is one, it is just as likely to be the flying spaghetti monster or some other regional deity as the Judeo-Christian god.

The laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant to the problems faced by relativity. To develop the theory of relativity they had to redefine the meaning of space and time, set a cosmic speed limit, and overturn all of Newtonâ¿¿s works. Once the predictions made by relativity were confirmed it was readily adopted by all. Furthermore, I could not find any version of the Laws of Thermodynamics which affected evolution in any way. Please explain the problem to me a little better or point me to your sources.

This wasnâ¿¿t about hanging my hat. I was just wondering if you have been keeping up with the developments in the field or if you just rejected it out of hand.

I did not make baseless assumptions. I made my assumptions based on the type of arguments that merlin presented, the fact that you agreed with him on some point, and the fact that creationist often point to problems with thermodynamics. You say that your only point is that anyone who says there is only one answer is wrong.

That might or might not be true, Iâ¿¿ve certainly have not seen any credible theory to challenge evolution. More importantly, even if there were more than one answer it doesnâ¿¿t mean your answer is a possibility. Even the chance of being a possibility is predicated on having evidence. If there is no evidence what so ever for divine intervention then it is not in any way able to answer any scientific question.

I’ll be happy to research any questions you have for me. Tomorrow is a busy day, but this weekend I have nothing better to do then research.

202

[quote]merlin wrote:

Was I right or was I right about this primitive thing who missed one too many happy meals?

You picked the wrong guy for an IQ test-off bra! Are you kidding me? How insecure are you really? Does your penis reach 2 inches fully erect yet?

Don’t let the surfer chizznizzle slang fool ya. You got a math major here “Einstein”.

You’re just a lowly lowly squirrelly scientist looking for his justifying nut. You pick a bodybuilding website to test your IQ, you must be a genius.

Hmmmmm… last IQ test I took I got a 163. Thanks to all those matrices.

You pick the test Einstein! I’m all for proving what a neanderthal you are.

I will warn you, don’t pick a math IQ test. You might need that $1000 for a dentist or an orthodontist. Someone has to pull the foot out of your mouth. Save your money, I have plenty.

No need to hide in PM.

Send the test right here. Time the mother fucker if you want. I’ll be your Huckelberry…

merlin[/quote]

Alright huckelberry, I’ll concede the general IQ test, my best is not a 163. That is pretty good. It makes me wonder how someone so smart can post such crap. On the upside your answers to my questions should be spot on. What test were you taking when you got the 163, the wonderlick, a proprietary psychologist test, or an on line test.

I often get wildly inflated scores in those online test. I will go head to head in a general knowledge/trivia contest any day. I will try to think of a fair way to pick one where neither of us have an advantage from taking it already. If you have any ideas there huckleberry, let me know. It will be high IQ VS. years of quiz bowl and jeopardy prep.

I can’t quit laughing about your response to my challenge. You call me an idiot for wanting to test my IQ at a bodybuilding site, claim I have low self esteem, and make presice estimates on dick size. Then you proceed to get all excited about it, accept the challenge, and brag about how smart you are. I know I’m not a genius, but at least I try to be internally consistent.

Hopefully my love for IQ test, trivia, and arguing don’t affect my dick size as much as you guessed or was it my dick size that governed my trivia, IQ test taking, and arguing?

203

Darwin’s black box.

‘If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely breakdown’ - Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species. In 1966 a book was published in the USA by a biochemist called Michael J Behe. The book is called ‘Darwin’s Black Box’. A black box is scientific shorthand for something you know nothing about except that it works. To Darwin the structure of a cell was a black box. however for more than 40 years the box has been opened and studied by molecular biologists and biochemists. Behe’s trademark is a simple mousetrap. Remove one piece of the trap and it stops working. The mousetrap can not evolve from something simpler. In other words it was designed and built. The mousetra is as simple as it gets. It did not evolve from its component parts. It is a ‘system of irreducible complexity’. The cell is full of irreducibly complex systems (Irreducible= that which can not be reduced or simplified). Behe did not discover this, it has been common knowledge for years. Scientists have always assumed that sooner or later they would be able to show how these systems evolved. They haven’t!. Behe has done 2 things in his book. Firstly, he explained the boi-molecular systems in the cell and shown that they are irreducibly complex. They can not be made any simpler without destroying them. Secondly, he checked the records to see if there was any attempt to explain the systems by evolution. NO ONE has come up with an answer."

All this can be found at the Center for Scientific Creation website.
merlin
[/quote]

This argument was called the “eagles eye” or “watchmaker” argument and was originally proposed, and debunked a long time ago. If you are interested in some recent work done on eye evolution check out this link (slightly off topic).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/real/l_011_01.html

As to Behe’s claims, many of them ignored what was already known. One example was the flagella of bacteria. He ran the “eagles eye” argument that a flagella was irreducible and required large numbers of different proteins working together in order to function. However it has been shown that an E.coli can have loose all but 4 of their “flagellum” genes and still have a locomotive “organ”. Interestingly, it appears that many bacterial flagellum evolved from ion pumps in the membrane that could “squirt” for propulsion and this explains why the flagellum and cilia are like they are (I’m not going to bore everyone with a discussion on how they work).

The thing about the irreducible argument is that it is expected to appear in a sense. Hermann Muller (he won a Nobel prize in the 40’s I think) said that when proteins were required to interact in an organism you should see an interdependence evolve. Thus if you simply remove one protein, the whole system should fail.

P.s. if you would like to know about symbiosis and evolution just say and I’ll do my best to explain (written expression is not my strong point ;)).

204

[quote]merlin wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
merlin wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Why do you feel the need to label me as a creationist, or an evolutionist?

Now you see where I’m comming from rainjack, with the fuckin’ LABELS?

That’s all this country wants to do any more, is label somebody and pick a fuckin’ side so they can argue their own genius about it. Talk about fucking INSECURITY!

The worst part is …they don’t even label you right.

merlin

Bitching about labels is all the rage now. For a bunch of guys who aren’t creationist, you sure do use their faulty source arguments and invoke “faith” a whole lot. For two guys who are just in the “I don’t know” category you sure do get fired up when people express some degree of knowing, especially when you don’t like where the “knowing” is pointing.

I think the real reason that you want to avoid “labels” is so you can evade any real challenges.

I think you don’t get laid much, and you have the intellecual capacity of a barnyard animal. Why else would you be trying to prove your existence on a BODYBUILDING website? Are you fucking kidding me? Where’s that goddam test already? I don’t have all night you mental midget!

merlin

[/quote]
You got me. My life revolves around T-Nation and what the people here think about me. You can tell from the shear number of post I make.

205

[quote]Flop Hat wrote:

That might or might not be true, Iâ¿¿ve certainly have not seen any credible theory to challenge evolution. More importantly, even if there were more than one answer it doesnâ¿¿t mean your answer is a possibility. Even the chance of being a possibility is predicated on having evidence. If there is no evidence what so ever for divine intervention then it is not in any way able to answer any scientific question.
[/quote]

You pride yourself on being a scientist, and rational thought. That is fine. There is absolutely no way for irrational beliefs to be debated rationally. Does that make those that hold them idiots? Stupid? Ignorant? No.

If you have no room for irrational beliefs in your life - that is your decision. But there is no need for your bigotry against those that do.

I have stated my position on this about 60 times now, and you can’t see past thermodynamics. I think that pretty much sums up this entire discussion.

You can research others’ work all weekend if you want, but it will not open your closed mind.

I think I am done here. You just don’t get it.

206

[quote]merlin wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

A scientific theory is based upon induction and therefore cannot be ‘proved’ deductively, like a mathematical theorem.

Faith is based upon subjective knowledge or a suspension of rationality. In either case, it is not subject to logical dissection.

I cannot prove to anyone that God has spoken to me. So what? Read some William James.

Good points. Holy hell …it took HH & rainjack to start adding some logic to the thread. I think I might have to make a “Why democrats suck” thread just in their honor. Nah, maybe not.

Finally some “reason” though …jeez!

merlin

[/quote]

Its our secret plan to turn you into a conservative. Rainjack works for the FBI and I work for the NSA, and its all part of a vast rightwing conspiracy. :smiley:

207

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
My BF is a Captain in the army.[/quote]

We don’t get many women on here to argue with all of us. Cool! Main thing: don’t take anything personally.

That being said, nice shirt! ;D

208

[quote]merlin wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:
merlin wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Why do you feel the need to label me as a creationist, or an evolutionist?

Now you see where I’m comming from rainjack, with the fuckin’ LABELS?

That’s all this country wants to do any more, is label somebody and pick a fuckin’ side so they can argue their own genius about it. Talk about fucking INSECURITY!

The worst part is …they don’t even label you right.

merlin

Bitching about labels is all the rage now. For a bunch of guys who aren’t creationist, you sure do use their faulty source arguments and invoke “faith” a whole lot. For two guys who are just in the “I don’t know” category you sure do get fired up when people express some degree of knowing, especially when you don’t like where the “knowing” is pointing.

I think the real reason that you want to avoid “labels” is so you can evade any real challenges.

I think you don’t get laid much, and you have the intellecual capacity of a barnyard animal. Why else would you be trying to prove your existence on a BODYBUILDING website? Are you fucking kidding me? Where’s that goddam test already? I don’t have all night you mental midget!
merlin

[/quote]

Now THIS is quality! The part about ‘barnyard animal’ is just pure gold!

Thanks, Merlin!

209

[quote]rainjack wrote:

You pride yourself on being a scientist, and rational thought. That is fine. There is absolutely no way for irrational beliefs to be debated rationally.
[/quote]

I see we agree on theology…

210

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
_
Now THIS is quality! The part about ‘barnyard animal’ is just pure gold!

Thanks, Merlin!

[/quote]

I also liked Flop Hats response.

Please pass the popcorn…

211

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:

You pride yourself on being a scientist, and rational thought. That is fine. There is absolutely no way for irrational beliefs to be debated rationally.

I see we agree on theology…
[/quote]

Faith is not a rational concept. It is predicated on believing in something not seen. How can it be defended in a rational debate?

But does irrational belief automatically deduct from one’s IQ, or subject them to public ridicule? Seems that is the case here.

212

From what I’ve seen, the answers I presented ended any debate on evolution(Yes from talkorgins, if a scientist already said it, what can I say that is any better? Plus I’m nearly 29, college was a while ago for me, as was study in evolutionary theory). No one has presented a single piece of evidence to back any alternative.

People on here assume all opinions are equal. They are not. What is demonstrated here is that those who don’t ‘believe’ in evolution don’t understand, therefore think no one else does. People who do understand it know that it is the only viable theory.

That is why not everyone’s opinion is equal. You can believe what you want, but in order to do so you have to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or simply disregard them, as Merlin did. That’s fine, just don’t get mad when people challenge your beliefs.

213

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Flop Hat wrote:

That might or might not be true, Iâ¿¿ve certainly have not seen any credible theory to challenge evolution. More importantly, even if there were more than one answer it doesnâ¿¿t mean your answer is a possibility. Even the chance of being a possibility is predicated on having evidence. If there is no evidence what so ever for divine intervention then it is not in any way able to answer any scientific question.

You pride yourself on being a scientist, and rational thought. That is fine. There is absolutely no way for irrational beliefs to be debated rationally. Does that make those that hold them idiots? Stupid? Ignorant? No.

If you have no room for irrational beliefs in your life - that is your decision. But there is no need for your bigotry against those that do.

I have stated my position on this about 60 times now, and you can’t see past thermodynamics. I think that pretty much sums up this entire discussion.

You can research others’ work all weekend if you want, but it will not open your closed mind.

I think I am done here. You just don’t get it. [/quote]

Ok rainjack, I asked you to show me an any post where I belittled people or called people things I wouldn’t call my dad. You didn’t, yet you still call be a bigot and close minded.

You claim I call people stupid for believing in irrational beliefs, which is dead wrong. I don’t believe I called anyone stupid, however I will call testable ideas stupid if I think they are.

I could be wrong about it, but it would be the evidence that counted. There are some very bright men who are religious and many past religious people who were brilliant. Why would I make a claim that people the believe in god are stupid when it is so clearly false?

People who believe in young earth creationism, global floods, and other testable myths may be ignorant of science, but it does not make them stupid. The ideas themselves however, can be stupid.

I asked you polite questions in order to figure out what it is about any of my original post that caused you to call me a bigot or where I expressed that believing in religion makes someone inherently stupid. To the best of my recollection, I have not done that. Show me where I say that believing in god, in and of itself, makes you stupid.

However, if in the course of your irrational belief, you make scientific claims or claims about what science can and can’t know, I have a right to judge that information based of facts. So while I can’t prove the existence of god, I can say without a doubt that merlins challenging questions of evolution were all bunk.

In the question of abiogenesis, you are at least as bigoted as I am. It may still be a possibility that god started everything, however based on current research it certainly is quite probable that life started all on its own and that scientist will soon prove it. You were unwilling to cede this fact in spite of the fact that there are many published papers on the subject.

If you choose to believe that god is responsible for something just because we don’t have full knowledge of the subject (god of the gaps) that is fine, but once again, I don’t think it is bigotry to point out that while god may be there, he certainly isn’t necessary.

Finally, It is silly to say I can’t see past thermodynamics. You brought it up and I only sought more information on your point. I looked for the event you mentioned and could not find it. I thought it would be interesting to see if, when, and why thermodynamics was changed to fit evolution. I have no problem with science sometimes being jacked up.

I just read a book called the trouble with physics, that pointed out many problems in modern physics. It even included some of the philosophy of science that headhunter mentioned, although the foremost philosopher in this area did at least mention science’s pretty good record for figuring things out.

This entire thread is a sham. It started as a debate on evolution, which is an undeniable, scientific fact. Then, when the creationist argument gets trounced, you attack people over the origin of life, then finally resort to a philosophical reasoning and personal attacks that have nothing to do with evolution and still doesn’t change the fact that young earth creationist are a bunch of verified idiots.

I was hoping that we could continue to question each other. The philosophy of religion and science are interesting debates, and while god is not testable any claims of miracles and divine intervention are, and can be discussed. I’m sorry that you think I am closed minded. That is the first time I’ve been accused of that. I might not be as smart or as witty as you and merlin, but I am more than willing to do what I can to understand anyones viewpoint and debate any science. I can’t say the same for you.

If your original premise and reason for entering the thread was that people are not stupid for believing in god, you could have stated that very clearly without mentioning thermodynamics or abiogenesis.

214

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
People on here assume all opinions are equal. They are not. What is demonstrated here is that those who don’t ‘believe’ in evolution don’t understand, therefore think no one else does. People who do understand it know that it is the only viable theory.

That is why not everyone’s opinion is equal. You can believe what you want, but in order to do so you have to keep yourself ignorant of the facts or simply disregard them, as Merlin did. That’s fine, just don’t get mad when people challenge your beliefs.[/quote]

Elitist bigotry in its purest form.

You never challenged my beliefs. You couldn’t possibly be able to. You don’t even know what they are.

But if it makes you feel better to think that you challenged something that…knock yourself out.

I am thinking you are quite adept at goose stepping.

215

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
People on here assume all opinions are equal. They are not. What is demonstrated here is that those who don’t ‘believe’ in evolution don’t understand, therefore think no one else does. People who do understand it know that it is the only viable theory.

[/quote]

Well, until 1900 or so, everyone thought that Newton had it down. Then someone asked: “What happens when we get near the speed of light?” Then someone else asked: “What are all these sub-atomic particles and why do they behave so strangely?”

Science works by continually upgrading what is known, based upon perceptions qua concepts, usually because some new device comes along, like a telescope or microscope.

So, while evolutionary theory is based ultimately on our percepts, the question becomes if ALL knowledge originates in our percepts. Here’s where science hits a wall: it only admits knowledge rooted in percepts. It excludes any other possibility. Its like a Boolean Algebra that excludes division. But does division ever happen?

216

Say what you want, every bit of what I wrote there is completely true. It seems that you, rainjack, do nothing more than dodge facts while lacking any comprehensive understanding of the material, even at its simplest level.

You won’t even state any stance you have, even though it is quite obvious you are a creationist at least at some level. Flop Hat has pointed that out with your arguments.

217

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
Say what you want, every bit of what I wrote there is completely true. It seems that you, rainjack, do nothing more than dodge facts while lacking any comprehensive understanding of the material, even at its simplest level. [/quote]

In your mind, I am sure you are right. Everything I wrote there is true, as well.

What I believe wrt creation or evolution is not important. If you could actually read what is written instead of trying to support your bigoted prejudice - you would see that my issue is with your hatred and your elitist bigotry, not your blind faith in science.

You make the mistake of thinking I am trying to convince you of my beliefs - yet I have told you nothing about what I believe.

There is nothing to dodge. Your reading comprehension, or lack thereof is not because I choose not throw more mud in the water.

218

There’s no bigotry, you’re just mad that what we are presenting does not fall in line with what you believe, even if you won’t say it, it is obvious or you wouldn’t be so emotionally involved in this.

I don’t have blind faith in science, but when the facts are there it could only be considered stupid to reject them.

219

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
There’s no bigotry, you’re just mad that what we are presenting does not fall in line with what you believe, even if you won’t say it, it is obvious or you wouldn’t be so emotionally involved in this.[/quote]

Emotionally involved? LMAO!! Evidently you have mistaken me for an Oprah whore. Which is not surprising since you have demonstrated an innate ability to know who I am and what I believe without me ever telling you.

You need to re-read your posts if you think you are not a bigot. From “religion should be done away with” to “only my opinion is valid because I can copy and paste” you personify bigotry and elitism.

I am sorry you can’t see that.

I guess blind faith is subjective - but your own words betray you.

Stupid? Please - keep proving me right.

220

With every word you say you prove me more right.