We are not the same. Darwin himself admitted his theorys have no proof.
This video just proves that monkeys can sound like humans. Thats all!
Creeeeeppppyyyy
That is why it is called a "theory." However, just like gravity, most of us think it explains what happens pretty well, so until a better theory comes along, we're gonna stick to it. And, just like gravity, the catholic church will come along 300 years later and admit it as well.
Once again, for the slow folk, evolution does not say that we are descended from apes or monkeys. We are distant cousins. We have a common ancestor.
What really gets to me is that all those people who misunderstand evolution in this way fail to even follow that argument to its natural conclusion and state that it is impossible to be a descendant of someone the same age as you. It would be a good argument. Based on a false premise, but if you are going to be wrong why not at least try to make a winning argument out of it? The stupid people you know will be convinced.
You know what is really creeeeeeeeeeeeeepy? stating that darwin said he didnt have proof almost 149 years after he published the origin of species. the truth is from the time he wrote it to now evolution has been proven through overwhelming scientific evidence.
Look up MRSA in wikipedia.... tell me that had nothing to do with bacteria evolving. when you thin the herd the herd gets faster.
no one has to explain what a theory is to you, mehappie. thats what middle school science teachers are for. if you dont know what one is, then you are too far behind to talk about evolution or darwins' claims. this conversation is for grown-ups.
and as for the title of this video: saying anything about how a monkey does anything like a human isnt surprising really. unless he could hold a job and pay taxes.... and by the way it looks here in the states some people here would be in stiff competition with a chimp.
the title is almost like saying "House cat runs like a tiger" .... and?
the only people who have problems with modern science are faithheads who base their lives on fear based bronze-age texts.
no one ever said monkeys and humans were the same. but we are primates and we DID share a common ancestor. if you didnt know that it was because your head had been so far up some pastors ass you forgot to turn in your biology homework.
I am wonderfully heartened to see another thread about evolution and its misconceptions.
Darwinian evolution is not, in point of fact, supported by science anymore. The deeper and deeper the investigation(s) go, the less and less evolution via natural selection can be supported. (Actually, much of this knowledge in it overwhelming forms was long-suspicioned to be true begininning in the 20's.)
Sad that the real misunderstandings about science and its limits is tilting on the side of those who tout science the most.
To azyrel: Yes, there are many scientists who put monkeys and man on the same moral plane. Looks like you might see it that way as well.
Common ancestor? Which one? When? Darwinian principles proven!? Really? When?
To categorize those who, upon firm scientific grounds, don't agree with nor accept Darwinian evolution as "faithheads who base their lives on fear based bronze-aged texts" is a hubris that can only be born of grotesque ignorance.
If this discussion is for grown ups, Azryel, you disqualified yourself within your own post.
Streamlined: You ask who? It was John. Sir John Protohuman. Wonderful man. I've got a book about him somewhere. Not sure when it was written, or by whom, or where, but I know it was true. It says so on page one.
Where are these firm scientific grounds that you base your doubts on? Is it that argument about the banana? Nonsense sorry. What do you propose as an alternative to evolution - a theory often cited as the most elegant and useful ever proposed? Creation? Nonsense sorry. Intelligent design? Same nonsense in a deceptive wrapper. No other theory gives a plausible path from simplicity to complexity as evolution does.
Oh, streamy is starting another flat earth discussion. Wondered how long it would take until he jumped to the ocassion to spill his 6000 year old earth bullshit again.
Any good new links to support your idiocies? Like some brand new stuff on answersingensis.com?
With deference to your sarcasm, Bucket, I will address some of your questions in general terms:
When a theory or hypothesis (evolution is technically a hypothesis. You learned this in 7th grade science. In order to achieve the level of theory, you need to be able to test your hypothesis. Evolution cannot be tested.) runs into evidence that contradicts, refutes or undermines the claims of said hypothesis/theory then it is time to re-examine. Upon re-examination then, the theory/hypothesis might need adjusting and, heaven forbid, complete discarding.
Darwinian evolution (DE) runs close to the second. It has become the default assumption of biology/cosmology/geology that it no longer needs evidence...just blind consensus.
I have challenged a few posters here to show me proof of DE and not one scintilla of evidence has emerged. (Note: data is rarely in dispute. Interpretation of the data is.)
I suggest you look at the claims of those you cavalierly dismiss. The arrogance and ignorance of your last sentence reveals one of the many problems of modern science.
BUGGERY: I've missed you. Why post any links for you, B? You never read the previous ones and therefore, never argued the points they made. When your head is buried in the sand...
The name isn't bucket, but Bucketboy. Anyway...
"I suggest you look at the claims you calvalierly dismiss." I asked you where your "firm scientific grounds" were, and you have chosen to not mention any. I haven't "cavalierly" dismissed ANY claims but the creationist argument about bananas being very nice to hold and convenient to peel QED god exists. Is that the argument you are using? It is silly. I will argue against it if you like, but I don't see the point in arguing against patent silliness.
I am a scientist (chemist if you need to know, we call on proofs daily) and I can assure you that if there was an argument that sensibly "contradicts, refutes or undermines" evolution it would be followed through to the point where either evolution is shown to be a false idea, or evolution lives to fight another day.
I ask again: Where are your arguments?
The requirement of a scientific theory is NOT that it is testable. If evolution was testable it would be tested and become a LAW and you and your silly mates would be forced to shut up forever (such a test may yet exist BTW). The requirement of a theory (and I cringe here as I bow to your semantics) is that it be disprovable.
Evolution IS disprovable. As a very intelligent person once said, it can be disproved by "a fossilised rabbit in the pre-Cambian". Where is your "fossilised rabbit"?
Show me your proof that evolution is false and I will abandon the idea forthwith. I suspect, however, that you will continue to hint at proofs that don't exist. SO: I will continue to "believe" evolution. You have neglected to say what alternative you believe in. Does it have more supporting evidence than evolution? Does it have ANY evidence? If so I would beg you to stop hiding it under a bushel and let me change to your point of view.
I can tell by your posts that you are not an idiot in the general sense, just in this particular. And as an intelligent person I ask only that you provide proper refutation of evolution. As a non-idiot your shameless doubt, without reason, I can only interpret as a willful attempt to sway more stupid people to your cause - and I argue with you only to show that evolution has nothing to hide.
Bring it on.
You are completely right thebug, but I fear that letting crap like that go unchallenged might lead less-thinking people to assume that there are no challengers. Not that I want the stupid people on my "side". Perhaps I should let natural selection sort them out. If I am wrong let "God" strike me down.
"Oh", they say, "the age of miracles has passed. God doesn't strike people down anymore!" How convenient. Without miracles, he is nothing.
I am fed up with playing lip service to religious types. I thought I had grown up at 14 when I stopped arguing with born-agains, but at 34 I decided to argue them into their pointless graves.
I hope to be frozen and then smashed into insta-mulch when I die. Give us a video on that Glumbert.
Dr. Bucket
Let's make one thing clear: I have not said evolution is provably false (although some of its historic claims have been so) I have said that it is unproveable (you might even agree) and that the weight of evidence is now in favor of something other than DE. Descent with modification cannot explain
Firm scientific grounds include the routinely disputed ages of fossils, within and among the evolutionists; the inability to have a coherent definition of evolution and its processes; the
Ooops
(this goes before "Firm scientific grounds...")
...through natural selection and random mutation, evolution. Our knowledge of the cell, which was once the simple unit of life has shown that the steps required to fulfill its very own processes could not have arisen randomly. It is well understood by many, but simply denied by the more ardent materialists. I know a number of them. They all say that the direction of science will one day reveal the elegance of DE. Just ike Darwin awaited the fossils that might display some sort of transitions.
Still waiting.
(Now go to "processes: the...)
...reversal of assumed simplicity at the cellular level to necessary complexity as our knowledge increased; the reliance on "assumptions as fact" as the default position of evolutionists; I can continue.
The banana argument is not a scientific one. It is an appeal the God's handiwork and is not used by the people I know. Might make good illustrations for children as things for which to be thankul.
Glad you are a chemist. The follow-through statement you made is obviously untrue, Bucket. Which of your colleagues have ever done so? If they followed a lead that refuted evolution they would lose their jobs (assuming you are in a university environment.) You and I know better than that.
Testability is a requirement of a scientific theory. How can you be a chemist and argue against that?!? Please tell me about the other theories that are not tested. In order for something to be falsifiable, it has to be subjected to some sort of evidentiary test. Are you being contrarian for its own sake.
(Really, Bucket, your statement that "if evolution was testable...become a LAW" is so juvenile. Maybe we'll just shut up then. Since it currently cannot be tested, I'll put my scientific beliefs to scientific challenges...not conjecture. Until then, scientific claims are to be questioned and the materialists'/evolutionists' unwillingness to question the very foundations upon what they believe removes their arguments from the realm of science and puts them in the realm of politics.)
Well, the Pre-cambrian explosion doesn't exactly help evolution now, does it.
No fossilised rabbit, but like your test for evolution, one might be around the corner. However, many things have been uncovered in strata, etc where they should n't have been found and that is simply evidence...not proof.
The weight of evidence that DE is hokum grows and grows. I know what I believe and that is all I claim...that I believe it. It is getting easier and easier to do so as science progresses.
I spent many years in biology as an ardent DE supporter. I left over this issue and the politics surrounding it.
To put that a bit into perspecitve: Streamy means to tell us that blind faith in his god is a good replacement for science. The world is 6000 years old and everything was made up by a trickster god to test the faith of his subjects.
Streamy, you unfortunately wasted your time in biology and you left it not because of the politics but because of your ignorance. Blind faith and science are simply not compatible.
Testing a scientific theory is done by comparing facts with models, not by making up things or jumping to conclusions.
Several points in reply, and then I will waste no more time with this. I have better things to do and better people I can correspond with:
1) I DON'T agree that evolution is unprovable. Again you fail to say where your belief lies, while stating "that the weight of evidence is in favour of something other than DE". Which something is that? The fact that you favour the acronym DE is a clue to me that you believe in ID (Intelligent design. It proposes that you can explain something very complex by positing something even more complex to design it. Just moving the problem somewhere else does not make it go away. Where did that something else come from).
2) I would agree that it is vanishingly unlikely that a cell could be created randomly. Natural selection has nothing to do with randomness - and as a biologist who claims to have thought deeply about this you should know that. Mutations may be random, but the survival of the fitter mutations is far from it. You either don't understand the topic or you are wilfully misrepresenting it.
3) I personally think that evolution is one of the most elegant ideas I have ever encountered and there is no need to wait for science to reveal that. If you understood it you may recognise the elegance of the idea yourself. Hell, even if you disbelieve it you should admit that it is a very elegant idea.
4) The old claim that we should see transitional fossils is just a trick. We have plenty of fossils showing gradual transitions. What do you want to see? A series of fossils with microscopic changes leading from one animal to the next? Fossilisation of an organism is incredibly rare. Divide the number of fossils by the number of animals that have EVER lived and that is the probability of an organism being fossilised. Not impossible, but extremely rare. And even if we had two fossils and then found a third that was in that transition we can't win against that silly argument, because from your point of view there are now twice as many gaps in the fossil record as there were before. This argument can be ignored after a bit of simple logic.
5) Yes, there are often disputes over the exact age of something determined by two experts. If you understood radiocarbon dating you would understand why it might be difficult to pin an exact age on something when you are only aware of its exact history for a tiny fraction of that age. Even so, although experts may not agree on an exact age for a specimen they won't be in dispute by an order of magnitude. Let us then add this to the list of things that you deny while much more intelligent people use the ideas quite successfully.
6) There is certainly a coherent definition of evolution. Where it becomes incoherent is when it is misrepresented by people like yourself. This again suggests that you have not researched evolution as much as you claim. There are many good books on the subject that you could check out.
7) "the reversal of assumed simplicity at the cellular level to necessary complexity as our knowledge increased". I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but if you are implying that the creation of more complex animals is a problem for evolution I would counter that evolution was the first idea that showed us how this might be possible. As it stated in an earlier post: "No other theory gives a plausible path from simplicity to complexity as evolution does." It certainly works better than ID which tries to explain the creation of more complex animals by assuming the existence of a vastly more complex being. Where did that come from? The creation of complexity is a topic of whole chapters of all those serious books about evolution that I don't think you read.
8) There are no "assumptions of fact" in science. It may be necessary to attempt to guess things that we did not witness, but those guesses are not then assumed to be fact.
9) Why would anyone be sacked for disproving evolution? I am pretty sure that if it was done Nobel and other prizes would be showered on those responsible. They may be sacked for harebrained criticism of evolution, but they would be sacked for bad science - nothing else. Where did this idea come from that there is some kind of evolutionist mafia that stops people criticising evolution? In fact there are many foundations set up explicitly to try to disprove it (eg the Templeton Foundation) and many extremely rich and powerful religious organisations that would happily stump up the cash for whatever was required. Do you think a bunch of scientists could threaten the catholic church or the evangelists with any hope of success. Silly, silly, silly. "You and I know better than that"? It's probably safe to assume that there will be little we agree on. So you don't use the banana argument. None of your ideas so far have held any more water than that one, so it seems a bit presumptuous for you to be critical of that one.
10) I have said it before, but testability is NOT a requirement for a theory. The word theory actually has very little meaning in science at all, and is used in many ways. As a scientist YOU should know THAT. How do you propose we test the Big Bang theory? We can test the Theory of Gravity by dropping an apple, but that doesn't make it definately true. Perhaps next time we drop an apple it will go straight up. Semantic arguments are not suitable for this discussion.
11) I am not being "contrarian" (what is wrong with the word "contrary" incidentally) for it's own sake. I am being contrary because you are speaking nonsense.
12) Scientists are not unwilling to question the foundations of what they believe. Quite the opposite. That is one of the great things about science as opposed to, say, religious dogma. You saying they are unwilling does not make it in any way true.
13) Yep, a fossilised rabbit in the pre-cambrian may be just around the corner, but if it is I would bet good money that it will be a sceptic's fraud that put it there. The fact remains that it hasn't been seen. Your statement that "many things have been uncovered" without citing references shows it to be unadulterated weaseling. As is "The weight of evidence that DE is hokum grows and grows". Does it really? Show us some, because I haven't heard ANY from you yet.
14) You state that you know what you believe, but I still don't.
15) My belief is that you left biology because you didn't understand it and everyone thought you to be a dickhead.
Sorry, a couple more things:
16) I did not know what you meant by materialist, so I looked it up. It has nothing to do with evolution, so I am assuming that it was an attempt to further muddy the waters. As it happens I don't believe in God, but I don't deny it is possible. I also don't believe in fairies, witchcraft, leylines and lots of other stuff - but that has nothing to with evolution. Many people don't see a problem in believing in both God and evolution. They are not mutually exclusive. It seems to me that If God was real he probably would have designed something really elegant like evolution, rather than something really crass like making people out of dust or ribs, then making a tree that they weren't to eat from, or dinosaur fossils they weren't to use logic to nut out an explanation for. He would probably have a sense of humour, but not a sick one.
17) I apologise to everyone for leaving such a long post, but it seemed necessary to try to cover everything in ream's post (abbreviation is fun!) lest I be accused of ignoring valid argument. I have followed them through from start to finish, and if I have missed anything it was purely an oversight, and if it is important I will come back to it.
Damn, I am already going against my intention to stop arguing.
Buggered: Blind faith and science must be compatible. You blindly put your faith in science, that is subject to ALL of man's foibles, and go from there. Good luck with that.
Buggered, I know this is deep: what if the models are flawed.
oops. Now what? Models are based on assumptions and assumptions are NOT fact.
Soooo, theories MUST be tested. In fact, to rise to the level of theory, hypotheses have to be tested. Tell me all about the DE tests, please.
Wow, buckethead, verbose and a jerk. Why do all the dispassionate scientists get so riled up when they are disagreed with? Hmmm. Maybe you are not quite the dispassionate knowledge seeker you would like others to believe. Maybe, even, you are subject to human error and passions and pitfalls. I wonder, just wondering, mind you...if this sort of thing can get into ones work. Pride. Arrogance.
Just a thought.
1)I could care less if you agree, B. I wasn't trying to move you. My position is to point out the problems of DE. And they are legion. We have NO reason to belive that random mutations (RM), when acted upon by natural selection(NS) results in new organisms. That is not to say that there is no such thing as RM or NS, just that they cannot explain life and its diversity.
The fact that you leap to an assumption from DE to ID tells me you leap to conclusions and that might impair your ability to be a dispassionate scientific observer. I am not a fan of ID. (oops) There are very good, scientific arguments inside the movement, however. Your summation of ID is inaccurate. ID supposes no level of complexity in a creator. (BTW- a creator would not need the explanation of its own source.)
2) I explained your own misunderstanding of NS and RM in 1). You either cannot read what I wrote or are willfully misrepresenting it. Bt the way, please explain how mutations, by removal of genetic info over the past millions of years, brought about MORE structures, functions and complexities? I mean, if we start with randomly connecting proteins (and that is giving lots of room), how do those combined structures mutate into MORE complex machinery?
(That is a tough one.)
3) Elegance is not an argument for the veracity of evolution. Comic books can be elegant.
4) No we don't. We have have (a) fossils that appear to represent a transition within species and, (b) we have highly disputed fossils. True, probability of fossilization is very low. Which is precisely why it is an argument against DE. The volume of species that would need to tried and failed to validate DE does not match the fossil record.
I will give you that your logic is simple, B. What is difficult to establish is what constitutes DE versus change that occurs within a species. That is the role of science and so far it is missing. The gaps are filled with conjecture and disputed conjecture, at that.
5) I do understand carbo-dating and the ASSUMPTIONS upon which it is based. (Uniformity of conditions, for one.) Actually, orders of magnitude are sometimes the dimensions of disagreement...especially when one test yields one age and another test yields something wildly different. In the precise world of science, shouldn't that raise an eyebrow or two?
6) Quickly, what is that definition?
7) Give me a quick hypothesis on the creation of complexity. I mean, if it is as ubiquitous as you say, surely you could give me a little info. As it stands, there is no explanation except (and this is an OMG moment): something simply arose from nothing. This being among the major tenets of materialism.
I am currently offering no other explanation. However, I am pointing out the deep problems with DE that undermine its current acceptance.
8) Except in the case of DE. Oh, and Climate change. Oh, and virtually anything that requires a computer model to make predictions. (Not saying these things aren't useful, just not necessarily factual.) There are legions of "assumptions of fact": You cannot name one DE fact that is universally accepted. (Well, I posed this notion to another poster whose answer was: "Excpet the fact that DE is true." Problem is: The supporting evidence is in question. So, the truth of DE is assumed, not proven.)
9) I guess you aren't in the university system. Go there and try to question the religious tenets of DE. (This is a situation of which I am keenly aware. You don't even need to be a Creationist.) Further, that there are other organizations who might and fund research into alternatives to DE does not affect my argument. Coherency on your part is lacking.
10) No semantic arguments from me. It is the word theory and its meaning that has apparently been lost. You must be very young. Theories are what happen to hypotheses that get tested and re-tested. Laws are what happens to theories for the same reasons.
7th grade science class. Maybe the term is now applied very loosely. Among other things, like logic and critical thinking.
11) Thanks for clearing that up in 10). I notice you did not argue against evidentiary tests. (Big Bang is being tested all the time. It is just that the results require inferences based on assumptions. Still, it is tested.)
12) My experience here and with professors/students/researchers says otherwise. Why would scientists be any less fallible or less prone to human pride in their beliefs than any layperson? You really must be young to be this naive.
13) You mean like all the fraudulent fossils manufactured in China? Or, all the fraudulent ones of the past? Piltdown, anyone. Anyone with an ax to grind might find temptation on either side of the scientific aisle.
As ancillary evidence that you are not seriously questioning the foundations of your own beliefs, I submit your request, FROM ME, that I bring examples to the table. Had you been so motivated by any basic curiosity you might have looked on your own. That you haven't suggests to me that you see no need.
Go find them yourself. They are everywhere. But you will have to dig, since TIME and NatGeo and SciAmer will not show anything that might dispute DE.
14) If the conversation proceeds, I will talk about what I believe more and more. But, my ultimate reliance is not on the transient and ever-changing knowledge base that humans create but on the One who made it all.
15) I hope you use stronger methods of deduction to arrive at your chemistry conclusions, Dr. Bucket. I thought a certain level of smarts had to be attained before being labeled a chemist. Lab tech, maybe.
16) You looked it up, huh? What did you learn? If God is possible, would His creation without DE be so as well?
Actually, why not believe in those things? You might as well. By inference, you clearly believe in "something from nothing"...which, to a materialist, should be magic and nothing less.
True. I have spoken to many. And true, they are not mutually exclusive. (Finding a deep elegance in DE would imply a creator, no? I mean appreciation of elegance is akin to admiring a creation.)
You impose a lot of things on a God you aren't sure exists. Maybe you haven't seen Him because you already have placed boundaries on what He must or must not be.
What God did or did not do is outside the realm of scientifically proveability but within the scope of inference. (Did not know that it would be crass to use the stuff of nature, that He would have made, to create man. The tree phrase is another discussion for later. Yeah, and all the dinosaur fossils yield consisstent and scientifically accurate test results.)
Again, your skills in logic suggest you are very young. I hope your job does not require a lot of thinking and evaluation.
17) Not many read our posts. You are safe.
Streamy, you DH (Dick Head) your BS (Bull Shit) has been DB (DeBunked) several times before.
The problem with you is that your education was a waste of time and effort, just like your whole existence is an unexcusable waste of resources.
I don't need to blindly belive like you FRA (Fucking Religious Asshole) do, I do actually understand the things I am talking about, as I demonstrated a couple time.
You lack the basic manners required for a discussion, not to talk about any sufficient education and intelligence to hold up your end without resorting to profanity.
I didn't ask you to care if I agree, just stated that I don't. The problems you pointed out with evolution were shown to be non-problems. Did you have more? We have many reasons to believe that mutations can result in new organisms. They are to be found in peer-reviewed journals. Ignoring them does you no good. The only reason I leapt from DE to ID was for want of another option - which you have still not provided. Are you suggesting that God would be less complex than bacteria? Seems unlikely in one so powerful. Evolution has been demonstrated in practice by its quantifiably successful use in fields such as aeronautics and electronics. It can come up with a wing design that is better than any designer could even understand, merely by randomly altering it (analagous to random mutation) and testing the results and moving on with the next best option (analagous to natural selection). Artificial though it is, it demonstrates that random mutations and natural selection can lead to more complex and succesful configurations. Beginner textbooks give explanations of how complexity can evolve. Go ahead and continue to ignore them.
I did not claim that elegance is proof that evolution is correct. Merely showed that your statement that you have been told (by materialists, YOUR straw man) "that the direction of science will one day reveal the elegance of DE" is probably false, as it is already acknowledged widely as very elegant. Don't make up arguments so you can knock them down.
Archaeopteryx is a form of life caught in transition from reptile to bird. What more are you looking for? It is not "highly disputed". Weaseling again.
Why do you insist that I quickly give you a definition of evolution? Just as elegance is no proof, neither is simplicity. You are arguing against yourself now. Quickly, give me a definition of the theory of relativity.
I gave an example of the creation of complexity above and a demonstration that it is possible through evolution. The origin of life is not discussed by evolution and is not the topic of this conversation, but while we are on the topic - anything OTHER than evolution claims that something arose from something else, which arose from (mumble mumble mumble). Another straw man argument. And again, materialism is not evolution. Drop it you idiot.
I cannot name "one DE fact that is universally accepted". You exist, and other stupid closed-minded people exist and this prevents universality. The entire body of knowledge about evolutionary biology is almost universally accepted by people with brains. There is no controversy.
Your point in 9 is nonsense, as I pointed out already. Just restating your nonsense does not require me to argue against it again. Where is my coherency lacking? Find a proof that evolution is false, publish it, start your world speaking tour. No-one is stopping you. If you get sacked (and I don't know why you would be sacked if you were doing good science) do it outside the university system. Who is stopping you?
Big bang theory is tested in the same way that evolution is tested. No-one has disproved either yet.
I am not that young, I am 35. Your point was? Scientists are free to question whatever they want, but if they question stupidly, as you are doing, they will waste their lives. The fact that they choose not to is not at all surprising. People will think they are dickheads.
"As ancillary evidence that you are not seriously questioning the foundations of your own beliefs, I submit your request, FROM ME, that I bring examples to the table. Had you been so motivated by any basic curiosity you might have looked on your own. That you haven't suggests to me that you see no need." No I see no need, but you do, and you still haven't found any. That is good enough for me to assume that if I was to look I wouldn't find any either. "They are everywhere. But you will have to dig, since TIME and NatGeo and SciAmer will not show anything that might dispute DE." Sounds like good old paranoia to me. You are speaking crap.
Ah, in 14 the non-surprising revelation that you are invoking God to do have done all this, or "The One". Sounds like schizophrenia to me. I make no apologies for assuming you are not that bright.
And my point in 15? That I believe you are a dickhead? On the available evidence it is a reasonable deduction.
I believe that God is possible only in the same way that I believe it is possible that we are all living in a gigantic simulator that we will all wake up from one day. It is possible, but not likely enough for me to take it seriously.
A deep elegance does not imply a creator at all. Who is using weak methods of deduction again?
I don't impose anything on God. I don't believe in it. Are you saying that God DOES have a sick sense of humour?
You also failed to point out any flaws in my logic and suggested that I am young and therefore stupid. Ouch.
As you failed again to come up with any new or valid arguments I hope that this discussion is closed.
Dr. Buckethead
It appears that manipulating chemicals and/or cleaning flasks does not necessarily correlate to a command of the English language. Nor does the path to this vocation pass through logistics.
You assert that the problems I claim are, in fact, non-problems...where? Where did you say this?
What are these reasons to believe that mutations (which always result in a loss of genetic information) create complexity where only simplicity once was? What peer-reviewed journals?
Let me say it again for the chemists who struggle with the language: I am not here to suggest what is the correct alternative (a positive assertion), but, as I have said now a couple of times, to point out the scientific and logical flaws of the DE claims (the negative).
No, I am suggesting just what my sentence claims: that ID doesn't make a claim about the relative complexity of a creator.
Ahhh...here we go. Evolution, in a generic sense, has been observed and is not in dispute within any circles I am aware. Natural selection exists. (In fact, it is a statement of the obvious.) Random mutations occur, almost all of which either neutral or are incredibly harmful. (Deep breath...I will say it again) It is the claim that life has developed its own diversity by means of natural selection acting upon random mutations that has no evidence.
"Artificial though it is..." In other words, the scenario you just described need a creator; at the very minimum to get the ball rolling.
What is/are the primary hypotheses about how complexity arises? I am aware of a few ideas and by the admission of some of their authors, they have no scientific or observational support.
With regard to the elegance line: please go read what I wrote. It was a statement of implication. I never suggested that you were saying elegance is proof. Goodness, have comprehension skills dwindled so much?
I am glad you bring up Archaeopteryx. What makes this animal a transitional one and not a separate species/genus unto itself? There are some scientists who think this may be the case. There would appear to be many problems with the old bird. Among them:It is a perching bird (Dr. Alan Feduccia), its feathers are fully developed.
See, it is the critical thinking that is missing from you and others like you. Swallowing whole what a group of scientists tell you, without even giving it a cursory thought.
Further, that is the only piece of interpretation you gave for the overwhelming abundance and diversity of life, that you claim is so easily explained by DE. It would seem your side has a long, long way to go to prove DE as the mechanism. You know, without a testable hypothesis or pesky facts.
With regard to the definition of evolution: I was simply pointing out the nonsense of your claim that it has an agreed upon coherent definition. Your answer proves my point.
You did not, in fact, give an example of the creation of complexity, Bucket. It took a creator, even in your example. (That has to hurt.)
Why is being a materialist so problematic for you? It is a thriving and legitimate philosophical stance based on all things observable. At some point, you simply arive at something from nothing. That is the explicit claim of the Big Bang. Now, you explain that which you think requires no faith to accept.
With regards to the "universally accepted" topic: The enormous amount of ignorance and Mako-like hubris that leads you to write something so silly as that is...I almost said "mindboggling"...but, now I know it is par for the course. No contraversy, huh? Those who disagree have no brains.
Thousands of phD's would disagree with your clumsy assertion. (I think you are indulging some of your homemade chemistry set today.)
I have not claimed evolution or the Big Bang have been disproven, illiterate one. I said the weight of evidence against DE is growing. Please try hard to read the words that I carefully choose for the remedially literate. You will not make up arguments against points I have not made if you do so.
I am losing my belief that you are a chemist, at least a rigorous one. That usually required a liberal arts undergrad...involving reading and formal argumentation in the form of research papers. I could be wrong as things have changed.
I also don't believe you are 35. You keep using the words dickhead, crap and the likes. When all else fails, right Bucket?
You asked for examples, tonight I gave a couple of problems about Archaeopteryx. Please dismiss them without addressing them. We would not want to change oars midstream.
There are more and they may come up should this conversation continue.
At the end of your clearly well-thought out piece, you said that a deep elegance does not imply a creator. But, in your "example" of flight/wing evolution: it was a product of RM, which is the first mechanism of DE, which is elegant, as you say. That example needed an creator, brainiac.(Remember the whole artificial thing) So, by your own reasoning, elegance can at the very minimum IMPLY a creator.
Since I found some holes (read: flaws) in your logic, at your request, I can assume the discussion is closed.
Wow, there was one thing correct in your rant: You are not here to suggest a correct alternative.
Very correct, you are here to propose your ID BS. Will you now go on to again tell us that earth is no older than 6000 years? I am wondering that you are even willing to discuss animals that have been extinct for millions of years.
If there is any evidence growing it is the evidence that religion is a very damaging force that cripples human beings by restricting their thinking.
As usual you are dropping a name of a supposed expert (we all remember the great Dr. Hartnett) and some vague remarks and that is your argument. Though in this case you obviously have misquoted a true scientist and I will just quote a question and answer from an interview with Dr. Feduccia (http://discovermagazine.com/2003/feb/breakdialogue) which neatly sums up all the bullshit you are spilling here:
"Creationists have used the bird-dinosaur dispute to cast doubt on evolution entirely. How do you feel about that? Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing. The corn in Mexico, originally the size of the head of a wheat plant, has no resemblance to modern-day corn. If that's not evolution in action, I do not know what is."
Gruss Gott, Buggered.
I see you are having a difficult time reading, as well.
Did not misquote nor misrepresent Dr. Fedeccia. He is an avowed evolutionist. No question in that matter. In fact, I used his position about the specifics od Archaeopteryx completely in context. He was specifically addressing the mischarachterizing of Archaepteryx being the end-all/be-all of transition.
EVEN HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS MY CORE QUESTION: What distinguishes Archaeopteryx as a transition and NOT a distinct species/genus? In other words, why must it be a transitional form? There are animals all over this earth that exhibit characteristics of wholly different and separate classes. Are they transitionals as well?
Just so you know, Feduccia in his own argument made a couple of huge blunders. (His reference to corn is easily rebutted: "With all due respect Dr. Feduccia...IT'S STILL CORN! It is not now a banana! Nor will it ever be. No one on this side of the argument disputes that.")
Yeah, exactly, it is still corn and you are still stupid.
Bucketboy did answer that specific stupidity "it is still the same species, no species can change into another" and I am not going to waste my time on you braindead creationist to repeat it.
Just one question: If there is no evolution where did the new species come from that did not exist 50 million years ago? Oh, sorry, I forgot, earth was created just 6000 years ago.
Buggered in the head:
If you showed as much curiosity about the claims of evoltionists and/or creationists as you do about making clocks shock people, you would not have asked such an asinine question.
The plasticity of DNA explains all sorts of species. (by the way, what is that coherent and universally agreed upon definiton of species?) So does geographic separation. So does inbreeding.
You see, genetic separation at the species level, even when the groups inquestion can no longer inner-breed, does not explain DE into entirely new organisms with new structures, etc.
So, your question, like most of what you write is empty-headed. I would then posit the same question to you: Please explain the Cambrian explosion in light of DE.
Did U guyz reed da new National Geographic? It gotz a artikal bout Alfred Russel Wallace, da co-founder of evilooshenairy biolugy. Dis B a grate scientisk an a imfallable theorum. I no I mite seam 2 B an excepshun 2 da rool, but I B 1 of a kind!
Mate, you may be just as chuffed as me that an entire record of our conversation is here as a permanent record for all to read. You shouldn't be, but I am.
OK. Continue to disbelieve and believe whatever you want.
As I said - Write a paper.
The record is here for any to read, and I am pleased for it to stand. You may add to it as you wish with my blessing.
Dig up stupid.
I make no apologies for my generation. Which is supposedly yours at 38? We frequently (in Australia at least) call each other dickheads, and even say crap.
Occasionally we say things that would make you blush.
Like bloodhole.
I am not surprised that you are so out of touch with your own generation and the way that normal people think that this would surprise you. And yet you want to keep it going?
I am a chemist and it matters jot to me whether you believe it. Specifically I am a review chemist - which means it is my job to spot flaws in proofs and challenge invalid assumptions. All day. Every day. (Not weekends, and I get paid double after 7pm)
In your work, having only seen the record above, I would be confused. If you were intending to have it stand as a "Result To Quote" I would not get past the first few paragraphs before asking for a repeat. It would even be scientifically justifiable. Was this the kind of reason you might have stopped being a scientist?
If I was unemployed, I would still call myself a chemist.
Where is your pride?
If you believe these things, why are you repeatedly coming back with pseudo-references that sound like they come from an evolution-skeptic primer?
Why are you not sitting down and writing your thesis?
Personally, I think you are too lazy to follow though.
And before you try to hoist me on my own petard - I don't care.
If Darwin was to be proved entirely wrong tomorrow I would rejoice that something else was made clearer. I would eagerly learn all i could about the new revelation.
Darwin won't have been completely right about evolution. I truly believe that large parts of most science we see in this day are still the shadow of what we will understand of the future.
I see that many things will be shown to be misunderstood, or, very occasionally, wrong. Science will move with it.
To me (and please understand that these are only the words of someone who thinks you are knobcheese, someone who likes you might be less harsh) you are the equivalent of someone who wanted to argue with Newton's Laws...... (hazy dream sequence).....
"Nope!" sez you, "I don't believe it! Where is it proven! I would rather believe that something non-specific is doing it!"
Data doesn't vary, but interpretations often do.
So everyone else stupidly goes about inventing evolution and building catapults to bomb your house (did I mention that in this dream sequence everyone thinks you are a dickhead?) you go on and breed and wait.
Eventually, one of your inbred spawn (missing lots of information by now - but how ironic that he was suffered to mate with himself! (Don't ask for more information. God did it.)) is eating lice in the back of a brothel. He hears chatter and he eventually learns to recognise voices.
They are talking about Einstein. HE HAS PROVED NEWTON WRONG AT LAST! In a small way, sure, but still heh?
It's better not to be at all uncertain in these things.
(end of story.)
(exeunt)
Unless another alternative comes along that can explain things better I will stick to the status quo in evolution. I won't argue because I have a different job to do and I don't believe that my search would be fruitful.
If, however, I disbelieved something that was widely accepted, as you seem to regarding evolution, I could not rest until I had laid out my proof and shown myself to be right. I would be wild-eyed and and tearing my hair out to get it all down on paper. I would want to be making damn sure no-one beat me to it.
You would go down in history.
Actually I feel bad about the cruel vignette I cast you and your descendants in above.
No honest, I feel bad and I'd like to make it up to you by giving you a story you might like MUCH better.
Are you comfortable :) Good! Let's begin :):):)
.....more hazy dream shakiness.....
Go do it! It will be the ultimate way to get back at me, because when you win the Nobel you could stand up and say "Take that bucket", (cheers! applause! everyone remembering learning about the decisive victory at school!), "Everyone sees that I am right! Next I will try to wind up back past mandelian inheritance!" (more cheers and cries for stud duties).
And I will be wailing and chewing the sides of my feet in a damp room, with no wife, no job, AIDS and a failing economy.
I will be trying to tell strangers in pubs (those I haven't been kicked out of yet): "BUT THAT CUNT WOULD NEVER HAVE DESTROYED ANYTHING IF I HADN'T CARELESSLY ALLOWED HIM TO HONE HIS KILLING TECHNIQUES ON ME FOR SO LONG! Curse you Glumbert and your eternal torture!".
And as they pedally propel we through the pub doors I will be sobbing as I crash into a pile of bins. They steal my laptop from me, on which I have written in tiny blue and black letters on the screen (They come off with my tears as I sleep, and each day I write them again from memory) the following words (Obviously I can't get power for the laptop because I am a Gay Creation-denying Junkie Prostitute Lab Tech who can't even work a powerpoint because he is immature and probably not even three) .....
mehappie 5 days ago
We are not the same. Darwin himself admitted his theorys have no proof.....
He cannot stop. It is his punishment. Now that he has lost his laptop he is scrawling the words on discarded pizza boxes, which he is always careful to shutdown properly before he turns them off.
He knows now that he deserves everything that The One sees fit.
For the sins of pride and arrogance and not giving up his job to search for fossils in every part of the world until he finds some which BawSAC won't even publish because it disproves evolution"ness.
He sees the light now! If only he could have accepted without asking for a sensible story?
You could do this to me with nothing more than your winning arguments and a ream of paper (oh, and some kind of pen - or a computer). Live the dream my son.
Just remember one thing. No matter how right you are, Ink cartridges are really expensive, and you are better off trying to get used to reading from the screen.
Cast me down, both on earth and in Hell (probably - SINNER!)
If I am to fall to such a mightly sword perhaps I can reflect just a tiny bit of his (or her, sorry) glory. Infamy can be nearly as lucrative as being right!
In case you haven't guessed, I have stopped arguing with you. I'm done now. Now I am just being a dickhead!
Anything from here on will be fucking with you, don't expect to get anything substantial or anything at all from me. You have been blessed with the short time with me that you have had - as have we all. Even me in a weird trinity kind of three-gods-one thing, but I probably wouldn't invite the holy ghost guy. He's a bit creepy and doesn't seem to do much. Do you think that Holy Ghost is actually God and Jesus's dog? Maybe he just gets included in prayers in the same way we include our mum's cats on Xmas cards. Hmm. I think it might actually be their cat that's called Holy Ghost, cos he doesn't do much, and a dog would still occasionally bite people while they were playing frisbee in heaven (even though it would only be a lovebite or because you were getting him all excited with the frisbee, God would never yell at Holy Ghost.) and I reckon we would have read about that in the bible if that happened, because people would like to read about a dog biting people and The One provides. So it was a cat. Probably I would invite the ghost. It would just be me and my son who is also me and our dog Holy Ghost who we love very much but wish it didn't poo so much who is also me. Oh wait, No. It would be a cat I said. Bit gay though. Grown man and his dad and their cat. Maybe a big dog. And we could get a sign for the gate "Beware of canine part of omnipotent omnipresent mind-reading deity".
Sorry, was I rambling?
Don't worry though, even if you don't believe in evolution, evolution believes in you and loves you.
Dr. Bucket-o-crap
(See I can play your game too. Not sure if it is as fun as you make it seem, since knobcheese is in your vocabulary. Maybe I will use sheep-shagger somewhere in here. Fair dinkum.)
Australia is lovely, especially this time of year. Bondai was magnificent. Illawarra wasn't so much. Spent a few days in Hay (seriously). Gosford and all the kookaburras I could handle. Loved it.
I don't remember the people I stayed with for those months to struggle so hard with critical thinking. Nicest people on the planet...second to the canadians, of course. Great beer. Beautiful countrysides. I might have to make the trek again. Maybe the west coast next time.
Back your insipidity...
I can see where my work confuses you. That should have gone without saying and is good that you admit it. Your work as a chemist and spotting flaws/invalid assumptions would mean that you probably don't deal with a random set of errors coming your way, but regular and predictable ones. Kind of like quality control of and assembly line. Critical thinking is, in point of fact, not necessary. Detecting the flaws that you have been taught to find might make you a skilled review chemist, but it in no way makes you an independent thinker. You showed that above all else.
It is after the "hoist...petard" line that you enter into the demostrably false. But, I will still demonstrate.
(I noticed in the following lines, you have severely softened your rhetoric about DE. All of a sudden you mention Darwin being proven wrong; he won't have been completely right; what we see today is "shadow" of the what we will understand in the future; many things will be misunderstood...wrong. This is not the tone or language of a man who is convinced of his own beliefs. If you believe the words you write, then you would see that my questions about DE are (a) honest, and (b) still unanswered by you or anyone in any field of science. The rest of your post suggests you don't believe a word of your own. You are just regurgitating, in a rote manner, what you have been fed.)
Your generalizations about me demostrate to me, and anyone following along, that you chose not to read my posts or misunderstood them through gross illiteracy. (Which is occassionally something that happens in science. GASP--well, maybe not the illiteracy part.)
I see that you have chosen to deal with the information/complexity question through invective. True to form, mate. True to form. I will say that referencing sex (through brothels and inbreeding) will score you big-boy points with the classically trained thinkers in here. I mean, you thrust yourself in with the likes of C-, IQ100 and Buggered.
Why wait for an alternative, Bucket? They don't come along overnight. The process involves argumentation, evidence, etc. You are openly admitting that you are waiting for others to agree upon the alternative and then you will jump on board. Why not ask questions along the way? (Like the very, very basic ones I asked of you...you did not answer, ignored or put up flimsy examples...that are supposed to be at the foundations of DE.)
ONE MORE TIME: (since you really are struggling.) I am not proposing the alternative, I am showing that the current model is flawed and based on invalid assumptions. Proving myself right is not at issue. Showing DE incorrect is.
Why would I expect anything substantial from you, Buckets-o-primodial goo?
All very nicely put there Stweem'O'Bullshit...well done
Of course it would be a little better if you were in any way correct.
You've shown nothing that suggests the current model is anywhere nearly as flawed as you keep harping on about.
Where's your peer approved paper debunking the theory?
I love the irony inherent in most of your hokem - accusing others of lacking critical thought whilst essentially supporting ID and a 6000 year old planet. LMFAO
Wow, attacking the credibility of others, coach? Is that what you learned from making training plans for your customers? Why don't you tell bucketboy a bit more about your elaborate scientific background?
You are in the same league as MC, just a little bit more educated, but that was a waste of time and resources on you. The only thing you can manage is to impress people a bit less undereducated than those MC has to seek to find a willing audience.
Still the main point both of you sorry specimens of homo (sapiens sapiens) miss is the difference between believing and understanding. You have a lot of the first and nothing of the second.
How the hell did I miss getting in on this latest Slap-Stream-O!-Around session?????
Whatsamatter, Stream-O? Are these "scientific" upstarts poking too many holes in your Invisible-Man-In-The-Sky-Who-Talks-To-People-Through-Burning-Shrubs beliefs?
Jesus H. Christ! How many times ( at least every time religion crops up----or, pretty well anything else, come to think of it) are you going to be like the proverbial vampire, where we have to hammer a stake into your chest REPEATEDLY-----before you STAY PUT????? HAH???? That's all you and your Posse are-----legions of the undead, who must be stopped and put down.
I am YOUR Van Helsing.....and those folks above------
are my crew.
Whereas YOU are the Evil One, and the Torture-Lover is your mindless lacky-sidekick, Renfield---Fly-Eating Freak.
Ream: I couldn't (Note how the intended meaning is correct with the addition of a contracted negation) care less what you think of me, except that if it is negative I am probably on the right track.
Your summation of the role of a review chemist is another hint that you do not have the various backgrounds you claim. "you probably don't deal with a random set of errors coming your way, but regular and predictable ones". Do you think that I sit at a desk saying "Oh look, you forgot to carry the two again!"? Although I certainly do check calculations, my bullshit detector and eye for aberrant results is always on. Belittle it all you like, you have nothing to do with science and your opinion of its practitioners is worthless.
You are a Young-earth-believing Christian. It would be inconcievable to a Young-earth-believing Christian to comprehend how little the world in general thinks of Young-earth-believing Christians. Your opinion of me, as I have stated, means jot in my world.
Incidentally, I hope you don't add ... GASP ... sound effects to your normal speech. Even in text it is unbelievably camp.
You deride normal people (people without crusades), for a lack of critical thinking. Simultaneously you believe in contradictory, often amusing, often wise (it is still literature), often perverse collection of ancient texts as though they were closer to the truth of the universe than what we currently accept as best-knowledge now.
No intelligent person would think this.
Incidentally, did you know that the bible gives the value of pi as 3? You can't get much more wrong than that. Unless you said it was 4. Did your pastor mention that?
Only a fool could criticise science for having changed it's mind. We have never been 100% right at any point in our history and there is no reason to believe that we are at a priveledged point in our history.
I do believe that evolution will be shown to be wrong in minor details. A large part of my bored rant above was to try to illustrate that if it is it will be in the same way that Newton's Laws were shown to be wrong after Einstein. Incredibly useful, and perfectly good enough for the very small to ridiculously large scale, but not 100% right. A very long way from wrong in fact.
Now, I can forgive the failings of a less intelligent person. The same rough set of guidelines, appropriately selected from many (many parts of the bible are routinely ignored), can help a stupid person in the same ways it has helped all of out stupid descendents. That makes sense for a stupid person, as does obeying civil and criminal laws.
Where it becomes unpleasant to observe is when it is done by apparently intelligent people. To my way of thinking, that kind of bizarre behaviour and refusal to question dogma either implies a sociopath (Perhaps there is an ulterior motive in trying to convert others? Financial parasitism or something similar?) or a mental illness.
In your case I don't believe that you are a sociopath (although I certainly wouldn't want to meet you, or allow anyone I knew to do the same) as there does not seem to be any chance of your crusade here winning recruits.
Which leaves a mental illness. Do you know what quixotic means? You are tilting at windmills.
Seriously man. Get help. Real help - not talking to your pastor or auditor or whatever you people use.
I also am unsure what your travelogue on Australia was meant to prove. Are we supposed to be impressed by your worldliness? With a few exceptions our beer is inferior to almost every other country in the world but but, and Australia is not lovely this time of year. It is fucking hot and unpleasant.
I guess I can't stop you visiting again, but if you do I heartily recommend the west coast.
I will try to remember not to visit it until I have read your next exciting travel vignette and I know that you have fucked off again.
Canuck: While I occasionally enjoy your posts, and enjoyed most of the one above, I am not your crew. I have no desire to get involved in any gangs on this site.
That was supposed to read "every other country in the world but the US" when I was criticising beers. I love Australian beer because I am too tight-fisted to get good stuff.
I love it.
Absolutely love it.
Drawing out IQ100, Buggered and C- to join another bitter little man...all in an effort to outwit the Christian.
After some very long and sarcastic threads, it is over-the-top clear: None of you can, through evidence, defend Darwinian Evolution.
You all claim that it is a basic FACT of biology. However, when this very well-known and basic fact is put to an evidentairy test or even logic, you ALL resort to name-calling and ad hominems. Apparently in your worlds, science does not have to answer to logic. Phlogiston anyone?
Random mutations, when acted upon by natural selection, (According to the most basic propostion of DE) result in, over the millenia, new creatures, structures, diversity, etc.
So, when asked to demonstrate how this might occur...nothing.
Buckethead said there is a lot of info and research supporting it. Where? I would say there is a lot of speculation via rationalization, but certainly nothing supporting it. None of you have given an example, cited a text book...only said that because many scientists believe it, it must be true. So, my questions remain untouched.
Boy, asking questions about established dogma and look at the open-minded scientists come a-rushing.
In the meantime, you have done a fine job honing your cut-down skills. C-, in particular. Bravo.
Stweem'O'Bullshit, climb down off your little high chair of self perceived superiority and remember that all your tiresome claims were refuted many months ago (I can point everyone towards the threads if you'd like? It might be painful for you though...)
Transitional fossils - your claims debunked
Random mutations - your claims debunked
Irreducible complexity - your claims debunked
Most of what you say and seem to believe - utter crap
With this in mind, your continued and very poor attempts to form an argument in favour of ID and New Earth Creationism by pointing out holes in the theory of Evolution are indeed met with name calling.
This is because you are a tiresome dick head who likes to think he's clever.
Sorry to burst your little bitty brainiac bubble but you demonstrate exactly the opposite by clinging onto your biblical beliefs. Again, the irony of your use of the word dogma is stunning Mr 6000 year old earth...
Happy Christmas (enjoy your stuffed dinosaur relative)
By restating your ridiculous claims ream you only demonstrate that you still don't understand the topic.
As I have said - if there was merit in your claims you would be pursuing them to glory. If not you would engage in double talk and ridiculous requests for a reprint of evolutionary theory here.
You still have not explained why it is that evolution has all these holes that evolutionary biologist don't see, and yet you cannot form a thesis from it.
"The universities don't like me!"
Do it without them. The truth will win the day!
When you are arguing against dogma and a refusal to see the facts there is nothing left but ad hominems.
Amazing.
I am not worth debating.
My claims are debunked.
And yet...
And yet...
No answers to the basic questions that by now should be answerable in grade school texts.
And, you all still come a-running. That last word must be very important. As has been said before, ring the figurative bell not only do the dogs salivate, they knock each other over to get here.
Bucket-o-crap...having your butt handed to you has apparently cut into the grey matter. I admit, I had trouble telling from which end it was all coming.
(Might explain the reading difficulties.)
Keep cleaning those test tubes. (Note: acetone is flammable. Please be careful.)
Let me know, I will do my best to answer them, and then it can rest. Be warned though, that if your request is to have evolution explained to you in full so you can jump on grammatical errors I will ignore it.
As I have said though, I am happy to let the matter rest. I believe that you have stated your case to the best of your ability and that I have stated mine likewise. Why can we not just let readers decide on the basis of what has been set down here?
If your aim was to tell people that there is doubt about evolution, or that evolution is wrong, then you have donw so, and should now trust their intelligence and let them research it for themselves. Let them decide for themselves who is a dickhead.
I have no doubt that you will win some converts. 50% of people have an IQ below 100. The rest of us won't miss a few of them.
They can read the refutations of evolution by bible-thumping lunatics (just an opinion) and then read the refutations of those refutations, or vice versa. They can then decide for themselves who is speaking through their arse.
You and I should be equally happy with that outcome.
Does anyone else think my butt was handed to me by the way? Perhaps there is a secret forum that I don't have access to.
Merry Christmas, gang.
I hope today has brought you and your loved ones closer. I do not think this is an opportunity for a cease-fire; however, amidst the dialogue, I do want to wish all of you the best. This day always marks the possibility of hope and salvation to everyone. My prayers are with you.
Deo gratias.
Thank you for biting, Bucket.
My question(s) phrased another way: How does natural selection act upon random mutations to create new structures/creatures, etc? I re-read your threads and this has gone untouched, except to say the information is out there and I am simply too stupid/lazy to go find it.
I was asking for your explanation since: the answer to my question is, according to you, universally accepted, basic to all biology as the underpinning process that creates diversity and well-understood. Over a century after the last revision of Darwin's "Origins" and the only thing to support DE, scientifically, is consensus.
Science still has to answer to logic. I am still asking simply for a defense of what is claimed. That is what science does, in large part: defend its own observations. (Please stay clear of open, Canuck-like bigotry: When you try to invalidate my questions because I believe differently than you, you move from a thoughtful argument to a bigoted one.)
I am not attempting at all to concvince others, through this thread, of any claims of DE or ID or anything else. I am speaking with you. If you are made uneasy that people might be swayed either way in this thread, you give us way too much credit.
From your language, it appears one's status as a dickhead is very important to you. Let's remove it from the ballot: I am this thread's dickhead.
Done. Now, we can get back to bigboy talk.
(Deo volente.)
Evolution is a slow and ongoing process (of course that does not fit with a 6000 year old earth). A species slowly changes over the course of many generations and it can happen that after sufficient time it turns into something different.
This effect is supported by many observations, fossils, genetics, biochemistry, biology, it can be simulated, and is used in a controlled form to improve lifestock and plants.
Now it is up to you to bring up the point that you have never seen the transition to a new species. Which is of course utter bullshit since you are not around long enough to see such a thing happening. It takes many generations to see a significant change in a species let alone the transition into a distinct new species.
So again: A marry bullshit to you. This whole thing is not about belief and faith, it is about intelligence and understanding.
Thank you, Buggered.
I hope you got lots of logic in your stocking this year! Looks like a little decorum and manners were left out of your gifts. Maybe next year. (I am pretty sure you got the latest Guitar Hero, though! )I will address your posting even though (a) it is frought with open silliness and (b) I wasn't talking to you in the first place. It does afford me the opportunity to clear up what you wish to keep complex.
According to some evolutionists, DE is not a slow, ongoing process. In fact, some claim it takes precise leaps to arrive at new structures. Some evolutionists believe it is slow, too. There is not universality. So, when you make that unsubstantiated claim, you only bolster the doubt that I claim exists.
My question, Mr. Literacy: HOW? You just restated what you keep restating, ad nauseum. How does, for example, a group of proteins align themselves and combine in such a way to create something more complex? How does it then self-replicate? Further, assuming a viable self-replicating structure exists, how does a random mutation confer new and more information to make that simple structure even more complex?
What you think has been demonstrated in the fossils, has not. One must assume DE to read the fossil record that way. Genetics? Biochem? Nope...the latest in genetics is pointing to a systematics that is vastly more complex and precisely tuned than was thought even 10 years ago.
Simulations are always built on a series of assumptions that may or may not be true. If the simulation assumes DE, then lo and behold, DE is supported. (By the way, simulations require a creator.)
Livestock and plants? When did this result in (a) new species marked by new structures, or (b) RANDOM MUTATIONS?! (please, buggered, read, read, read what I write before bloviating.)
Your final point that we have not been around long enough to see such a thing happen: a tacit admission that transitional forms are not observed despite the outcry that, when I point this simple fact out, I am made to be wrong and/or stupid and/or belief oriented.
Buggered, if no one was around to see these suspected transitional forms, I guess that means you are also basing all of you opinions on faith as well. It's just that you deny it.
(Consider this my little stocking stuffer to you.)
A) You are too stupid to understand any of the concepts discussed. B) Where is your alternative explanation? C) It is outrageously stupid to stand directly in front of a mountain and claim that you can not see it becuase there is a lot of rock blocking your view.
So the summary of the three points: You are stupid.
Regarding manners: I treat those with due respect who deserve any.
Danke, Buggered.
Your comments stand alone as to your bewilderment. I know you agree when I say that it was probably better if you hadn't interrupted Buckets on this thread. Your responses definitely don't constitute support.
One does not need an alternate explanation when poking holes in the current one...or, haven't you read that over and over in my responses.
It is outrageously stupid to continue to post when it is obvious you can't answer, even on the most minimal level, my questions.
Ever hear of Bill Mahers documentary on religion, called "Religulous"? Well, here's the link for it....and guess what? It's a FREE viewing for you and anyone else here to have a look.
Know why I'm giving you this FREE gift?
Because do yourself a favour: consider THIS to be the Last Goddamn Word on all the useles fairytales that you (and those LIKE YOU) insist on believing in.
And all because because you simply refuse to.....grow up.
Stick with the likes of Bill Maher.
Shallow and easy to understand.
Requires only a prejudice against God and morality.
You need no critical thinking skills.
And, his only credit is that he was a comedian...in fact, he was funny once.
Let's here it for mediocrity, C-!
Hey...you require your knowledge and beliefs to be supported by movies like this and Michael Moore's, right? Did you know those guys can edit these movies, C-? They can cut and paste them in such a way to lead sheep in any direction they want. Seriously.
Check into that technique.
Also, don't drink and type.
You make promises you will not keep.
You mean movies are like the bible and other religious books? They are edited to support a certain agenda?
Being religious just needs prejudice against logic, a certain level of ignorance and willingness to swallow all kinds of bullshit. Of course no critical thinking is the basic requirement.
Notice how he pisses and moans about how they "edit these movies" (he STILL can't tell it's a DOCUMENTARY), and yet can't bring up a SINGLE exampe of what exactly is inaccurate in it?
Buggered and IQ100- You just equated a movie with the most influential book in the history of the world. I see the parallel you are trying to draw but it is very, very weak.
This move, and others, require a single-minded director to make choices as to what is seen and then digested. The Bible, however, was written by a number of authors over a thousand years. That is one heckuva conspiracy to lead the flock. You give the authors a lot of conspiratorial credit. (I also suggest you read the Bible a little before making statements about it.)
C-: I made a number of factual corrections to Moore's movies on other threads. I remember quite well slapping you silly then as now.
I do know that Bill Maher, the spineless wonder he is, was caught sneaking in to the Creation Museum, rather than making an appointmnent to speak with them.
What is it about Christianity that you so despise? What teaching?
Good one, buggered.
Where do the German people fall under "destructive" influences?
Would you say your history of destructive influences was a Christian one or a non-Christian one?
Without wishing to get nationalistic (you clearly are the flag waving nut winner here) would it be fair to ask about the US and its history of destructive influences in this context?
I mean surely the only nation to have ever used nukes in anger must put it up there for comparison...?
Another question in the same line: Did the USA learn anything out of its misdoings?
And since you are obviously refering to the third reich: Nice role the christian church played in this part of history. But surely you will distance YOUR religion from that in just a second.
Or did you refer to the thirty years war? Crusades?
"I do know that Bill Maher, the spineless wonder he is, was caught sneaking in to the Creation Museum, rather than making an appointmnent to speak with them."
(sighs)
If you'd have watched the fucking thing with the FREE link I'd provided, you'd fuckin' see that he DID get into that nutty Creationist Museum, and he DID sit down and gave a fucking one-on-one interview with the Head Nutcase (who, in point of fact, DID manage to look like a total fuckin' clueless zealot).
Fuck sakes, man. At least WATCH something before you criticize it.
And even though I AM a Moore fan......what the FUCK DOES HE HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I'VE SAID HERE-AND-NOW?????
Go watch the documentary you idiot, and then get back to me.
BTW: I did watch the documentary during the holidays, quite good. Maher did not do much except for allowing these people a platform to show how stupid the stuff is they believe in. I especially liked the italian guy who was a little bit in disagreement with his church.
As for sneaking into the creation museum: I thought it is a place open to the public, how do you sneak into such a place?
Comments (84)
To post a comment, you need to login or signup.