User Tag List

Page 1 of 12 123411 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 171

Thread: The evolution game is up!!!

  1. #1
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1458

    The evolution game is up!!!

    It was pretty reasonable back around the time of the US Civil War to believe that life might have arisen naturally and changed and diversified by purely natural means to generate everything we see today.

    It might even have been marginally feasible back around WWII days before much if anything was known about DNA, how extensive it was and how it worked in detail.

    After all I grew up and was in college in those days and accepted it without question.

    Science moves on and learns new things.

    Today it amazes me that people can read about what is going on in even the simplest cell, and not question whether a process of making errors (mutations) could have created all the marvels now known about cells.

    I challenge those who still believe that all life descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell to read entirely through the "Cell Trends Too" thread at the top of this religion forum and then come back and tell us whether they still believe firmly in that evolution scenario.

    That thread covers only the past 7 years of discoveries about cells. Who knows what the next 7 years will bring?

    At what point will scientists begin to question the extrapolation of small changes without limit (macroevolution)?

    At what point will the schools cease the indoctrination of our children in this obsolete science?
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  2. #2
    Old Timer Damian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    492
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts

    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5077
    Quote Originally Posted by bob b View Post
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Who is espousing that there are random changes?

  3. #3
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Davis, CA
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    126
    Bob, do you think that evolution is a some sort of global conspiracy espoused by the majority of the scientific community in order to suppress what you see as the truth? If you can demonstrate this true I will change my major to art next week.

  4. #4
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1458
    Quote Originally Posted by Damian View Post
    Who is espousing that there are random changes?
    "The modern evolutionary, synthesis (often referred to simply as the new synthesis, the modern synthesis, the evolutionary synthesis, neo-Darwinian synthesis or neo-Darwinism), generally denotes the integration of Charles Darwin's theory of the evolution of species by natural selection, Gregor Mendel's theory of genetics as the basis , for biological inheritance, random genetic mutation as the source of variation, and mathematical population genetics. Major figures in the development of the modern synthesis include Thomas Hunt Morgan, R. A. Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, J.B.S. Haldane, Sewall Wright, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, Bernhard Rensch, George Gaylord Simpson, and G. Ledyard Stebbins."

    From the Wikipedia article: "The modern evolutionary, synthesis".
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  5. #5
    Over 500 post club PlastikBuddha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Still going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it- but now looking up.
    Posts
    650
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    485
    Quote Originally Posted by bob b View Post
    It was pretty reasonable back around the time of the US Civil War to believe that life might have arisen naturally and changed and diversified by purely natural means to generate everything we see today.

    It might even have been marginally feasible back around WWII days before much if anything was known about DNA, how extensive it was and how it worked in detail.

    After all I grew up and was in college in those days and accepted it without question.

    Science moves on and learns new things.

    Today it amazes me that people can read about what is going on in even the simplest cell, and not question whether a process of making errors (mutations) could have created all the marvels now known about cells.

    I challenge those who still believe that all life descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell to read entirely through the "Cell Trends Too" thread at the top of this religion forum and then come back and tell us whether they still believe firmly in that evolution scenario.

    That thread covers only the past 7 years of discoveries about cells. Who knows what the next 7 years will bring?

    At what point will scientists begin to question the extrapolation of small changes without limit (macroevolution)?

    At what point will the schools cease the indoctrination of our children in this obsolete science?
    Maybe if a theory that fit the facts better were devised, there would be an issue. Are you claiming to have some explaination more scientific than "just cuz"? Our understanding of cell complexity doesn't seem to bother anyone else. Could it be that you're once again sounding the death knell prematurely?
    "Those who have crossed
    With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
    Remember us--if at all--not as lost
    Violent souls, but only
    As the hollow men
    The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot
    γνῶθι σεαυτόν

  6. #6
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    159
    Bob, do you find arguments from incredulity impressive or particular convincing?
    “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

  7. #7
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1458
    Quote Originally Posted by CRMRC View Post
    Bob, do you think that evolution is a some sort of global conspiracy espoused by the majority of the scientific community in order to suppress what you see as the truth?
    Your suggestion is quite inane, yet I see it all the time among people who are in denial about something.

    It is perfectly natural and understandable that the people closest to large scale theoretical problems will be the last to "get it". This is what almost always happens in science.

    Any serious history-of-science book will tell you that.

    And the situation is complicated even more by the fact that no other natural theory has arisen to take the place of the reliance on "random mutations plus natural selection".

    In other words there is no alternative theory available that would be acceptable to a scientist working in this field, certainly to "give up" and conclude that "God dun it" is not an option.

    And there is the further complication that intense hate has built up over the past several decades against the stupid creationists, to the point where it would be unthinkable to concede even the possibility that they might have been right all along.

    No, the stage is now set for an interesting drama to play out, as more and more unreasoned panic and retaliation against "traitors" begins to occur on the scientific scene.

    It will be fun to watch.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  8. #8
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1458
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Bob, do you find arguments from incredulity impressive or particular convincing?
    It depends on the particular case.

    For example, I find the case for intelligent life on other planets in our solar system and in other galaxies quite unconvincing even though it is not possible to scientifically prove the idea wrong.

    And the more that is discovered about how cells work, the more reason we have to believe that life could only have arisen from the actions of a super intelligent agency of some kind.

    In other words, the argument is not so much from what we don't know, but instead from what we do know.
    (See Cell Trends Too thread at the top of this Religion forum for details).
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

  9. #9
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    Bob, do you find arguments from incredulity impressive or particular convincing?
    I find this objection premature from only those who don't really understand the fallacy in detail. Evolutionists make the same claim that it is inconceivable that a designer would create a malfunctioning part of an organism or even junk DNA for that matter. If no reason is given, then the argument from incredulity would be weak. In some cases actually, using the argument from ignorance is perfectly fine although I know that people who don't have an understanding of philosophy will find this absurd.
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  10. #10
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    960
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by macguy
    I find this objection premature from only those who don't really understand the fallacy in detail. Evolutionists make the same claim that it is inconceivable that a designer would create a malfunctioning part of an organism or even junk DNA for that matter.
    I notice that two of your four sentences make reference to people not understanding the fallacy, but zero of your four sentences are devoted to actually defending the use of personal incredulity in this specific case or explaining why it is a premature objection.

    You see, Bob B is not asking us to critically examine the mechanism behind evolution in his thread. His argument simply relies on sheer incredulity -- the "wow" factor. Were he to say something like "Evolution absolutely cannot account for this structure or this system because of these specific reasons", he would have a proper argument. But that's not what he's doing. He's bypassing the part where he as to actually argue for something and skipping to inducing a reactionary response which does not require examination of the proposed mechanism.

    Bob B tells us, "Today it amazes me that people can read about what is going on in even the simplest cell, and not question whether a process of making errors (mutations) could have created all the marvels now known about cells." Notice in this quote he has not committed his error yet. He has simply asked us to ponder whether or not the proposed mechanism can fully account for the marvels of the cell. That's a valid request. But continues, "I challenge those who still believe that all life descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell to read entirely through the "Cell Trends Too" thread at the top of this religion forum and then come back and tell us whether they still believe firmly in that evolution scenario." Notice that a careful examination of the evidence is excluded, and our beliefs are to be determined based on the "marvels of the cell" rather than being based on whether or not the proposed mechanism can actually account for these marvels.

    Naturally, evolutionists have a response. There is a mechanism proposed which can lead to such marvels and wonders of the cell. Undoubtedly Bob finds the mechanism inadequate, but if he is to convince others without resorting to elementary logical fallacies then he should focus his attack the specific inadequacies of the proposed mechanisms rather than appealing to everyone's incredulity. The fact that I have yet to see him mount a sufficient argument attacking the mechanism and instead choosing to resort to elementary logical fallacies is quite telling (and please do not think that I will never consider an opposing argument sufficient. I have no problems recognizing a well-developed argument when I see one, and I have encountered well-developed creationist arguments).
    “There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear.” - Daniel Dennett

  11. #11
    Over 5000 post club The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,225
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 271 Times in 220 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    93027
    I find it hard to believe that anyone able to read still thinks that evolutionary theory is about the origin of life.

    BTW, there is a very large body of work in the biochemistry literature,showing how complex biochemical systems evolve.

    As usual, the enemy of reason is ignorance.

  12. #12
    Trainee Jehu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Niles, MI
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CRMRC View Post
    Bob, do you think that evolution is a some sort of global conspiracy espoused by the majority of the scientific community in order to suppress what you see as the truth? If you can demonstrate this true I will change my major to art next week.
    It would seem to me that evolution isn't really a conspiracy, it's just the inevitable result of using naturalistic beliefs to interpret history. When your definition of science specifically excludes anything supernatural, then scientists are forced to come up with some other idea, even though that idea is still unobservable and untestable. Now that you have a hypothesis in place, all evidence will be interpreted according to it, and it becomes a paradigm.

    So while it's true that a supernatural creation isn't considered scientific, it has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

  13. #13
    Journeyman eveningsky339's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Maine
    Posts
    109
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    126
    Quote Originally Posted by PlastikBuddha View Post
    Maybe if a theory that fit the facts better were devised, there would be an issue. Are you claiming to have some explaination more scientific than "just cuz"? Our understanding of cell complexity doesn't seem to bother anyone else. Could it be that you're once again sounding the knell prematurely?
    Wait, you said it doesn't bother anyone else? Have you ever read Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe?

  14. #14
    Journeyman macguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    148
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    I notice that two of your four sentences make reference to people not understanding the fallacy, but zero of your four sentences are devoted to actually defending the use of personal incredulity in this specific case or explaining why it is a premature objection.
    Indeed and I left a comment for others to think about in order for them to continue an investigation of your claim. Think of it as a just a tidbit although you ignored that fact that even Darwin and at least some evolutionists use the argument from ignorance against a intelligent designer. Your lack of response either means you missed it, which I think is rather unlikely as most of the time you investigate a reply thoroughly before replying. Unless of course you are in agreement...

    As for bob, I think you should've replied to his statement instead of mine. I would not just say that the cell is so complex and therefore it cannot arise by chance. My style is to present evidence AGAINST a naturalistic explanation with focus on details other than complexity since evolutionists already acknowledge it but just attribute it to a random process anyways. I would first question the mechanism at hand while attacking its adequacy which in time, I'll probably get around doing that with you. It's just that I am saving my time until that time does come so that way, we'd have a more comprehensive discussion. Would you agree?

    Naturally, evolutionists have a response.
    Indeed so...
    The voiceless, the wasted...You soaked your hearts in gasoline. Now light it up and burn.

  15. #15
    Science Lover
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Bend, IN
    Posts
    1,968
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1458
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny View Post
    I notice that two of your four sentences make reference to people not understanding the fallacy, but zero of your four sentences are devoted to actually defending the use of personal incredulity in this specific case or explaining why it is a premature objection.

    You see, Bob B is not asking us to critically examine the mechanism behind evolution in his thread. His argument simply relies on sheer incredulity -- the "wow" factor. Were he to say something like "Evolution absolutely cannot account for this structure or this system because of these specific reasons", he would have a proper argument. But that's not what he's doing. He's bypassing the part where he as to actually argue for something and skipping to inducing a reactionary response which does not require examination of the proposed mechanism.

    Bob B tells us, "Today it amazes me that people can read about what is going on in even the simplest cell, and not question whether a process of making errors (mutations) could have created all the marvels now known about cells." Notice in this quote he has not committed his error yet. He has simply asked us to ponder whether or not the proposed mechanism can fully account for the marvels of the cell. That's a valid request. But continues, "I challenge those who still believe that all life descended from a single hypothetical primitive protocell to read entirely through the "Cell Trends Too" thread at the top of this religion forum and then come back and tell us whether they still believe firmly in that evolution scenario." Notice that a careful examination of the evidence is excluded, and our beliefs are to be determined based on the "marvels of the cell" rather than being based on whether or not the proposed mechanism can actually account for these marvels.

    Naturally, evolutionists have a response. There is a mechanism proposed which can lead to such marvels and wonders of the cell. Undoubtedly Bob finds the mechanism inadequate, but if he is to convince others without resorting to elementary logical fallacies then he should focus his attack the specific inadequacies of the proposed mechanisms rather than appealing to everyone's incredulity. The fact that I have yet to see him mount a sufficient argument attacking the mechanism and instead choosing to resort to elementary logical fallacies is quite telling (and please do not think that I will never consider an opposing argument sufficient. I have no problems recognizing a well-developed argument when I see one, and I have encountered well-developed creationist arguments).
    Actually I have tried numerous ways to convince dogmatic evolutionists that "random mutations plus natural selection" is a woefully inadequate mechanism to support the idea that all life descended from a single hypothetical protocell. I have become convinced this is hopeless in the short run, so have instead concentrated on trying to convince wavering Christians that they do not have to water down scripture to agree with evolution because evolution is on its way out.

    Ideas die hard in science, especially if an acceptable scientific idea is not available to replace it.

    A famous scientist once continued to believe in a theory of combustion which required "negative mass" to fit the results of experiments. He went to his grave still believing in it.

    I think you may be familiar with the case. But in that case a better scientific theory was available. In this case no other "natural" theory is available and scientists hate to give up and accept the God alternative. Which is why it will take far longer and require many more scientists to die off before the idea finally gets dropped.

    But in the meantime we need to alert wavering Christians that they need not water down scripture to agree with this current idea of scientists, because this current idea is doomed in the long run by the inevitable progress in biology that is uncovering the secrets of the cell, DNA, proteins and the like.

    I hold no unrealistic hope of convincing you, because you are part of the system. You will have to wait the full length of time it will take for scientists themselves to give up on it. I can only hope you live long enough to see that day; I am certain I won't.
    Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
    Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us