Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution, the secular religion

Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe. Conveniently, evolutionists use the excuse that "evolution takes millions of years" to handwave that away. These convenient handwaves are a hallmark of pseudoscience; pseudoscientists don't care about evidence, they care only about supporting their conclusion.

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird. Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

But if evolution was untrue, what makes atheists hold onto it so firmly? The reason is that it's a religion. Evolutionists believe that whatever "scientists" write in books must be true. [1]

The religion of evolution is heavily detrimental to our society. Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics. Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak". Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum. Evolutionists think that opposing their religion is "politically incorrect". Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Thus, let us remove the unconstitutional Darwinist religion from schools. Intelligent Design is the only explanation for life.

Sources
[1]https://www.chick.com...
:) nac
autocorrect
Posts: 432
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 9:43:46 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

Thus, let us remove the unconstitutional Darwinist religion from schools. Intelligent Design is the only explanation for life.

It's difficult to tell whether you are just uneducated - or so desperate for attention you're willing to say something controversial about something not controversial at all among the educated. If there's a God, He's a firework starter God - there at the beginning of Creation of the universe, that then unfolds according to laws science now understands quite well. It's the perfect crime - for He has left not a trace of His existence for us to find, and say there - that is irrefutable proof of the existence of God. On the contrary, what we once considered proof of God, such as the appearance of design in the natural world, is revealed by science as the effect of causal processes - right back to the first cause: the firework starter.
Religion should be humble enough to take its natural, and honoured place as the historical basis of society, and the philosophical basis of speculations that have led us to valid understanding - but it is vain, prideful, greedy, power hungry and corrupt - the very antithesis of all it requires of those who bow on bended knees to this false idol. By this pretence to truth - religion earns only contempt.
roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 10:05:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It explains how life changes over millions of years in order to suit its environment. There IS evidence of evolution, ever heard of the fossil record? We have observed transitional phases in many different species around the world and you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that contradicts this. Also, the scientific use of the word 'theory' is very different from the nonscientific use of the word.

Scientific theories, by nature, are well-substantiated and repeatedly tested observations to natural phenomena. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. The Earth is not closed system. It receives massive amounts of energy from the Sun everyday. Most modern day birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs called 'Theropoda.' Ancestors of modern apes and humans are the early hominids. There's also the genus of the Anatosuchus which shares characteristics with modern crocodiles and ducks.

Honestly, did you even spend 5 minutes researching this?
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 12:16:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

As opposed to an actual religion that does that...

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

Yes. Which is why its called "the theory of evolution" as opposed to Darwin's Law or some such moniker.

Conveniently, evolutionists use the excuse that "evolution takes millions of years" to handwave that away. These convenient handwaves are a hallmark of pseudoscience; pseudoscientists don't care about evidence, they care only about supporting their conclusion.

... He moves in mysterious ways. God wants us to have free will. Blah blah blah. The fact is that the ToE is gathered from something tangible, as opposed to questions serving as what God must be as opposed to where the evidence points.

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance.

If you are familiar with the line of logic you are using, that would be true in a close system with no addition source of energy. Currently, the Earth is being 'powered' by a fairly large nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away, and it seems said reactor has enough fuel for billions of more years.

It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground--yet we have never found a crockoduck,

Why would we if a crocodile and a duck never shared close ancestors on their 'branch'?

an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird.

Um... pterodactyl? What do you consider homo erectus? What is your benchmark for what constitutes a transitional specie? Lets get that ironed down so when something is presented you can't wriggle away.

Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

I wasn't aware that rarity is absence. Doesn't the very definition of the word "rare" make this a contradictory argument?

But if evolution was untrue, what makes atheists hold onto it so firmly? The reason is that it's a religion. Evolutionists believe that whatever "scientists" write in books must be true. [1]

So there are no such thing as Christian evolutionists?

The religion of evolution is heavily detrimental to our society. Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics.

Here, watch, I can straw man something to: Religion's doctrine is that the unbelievers and heretics should be killed or put to the stake. Convert, confess, or get crucified.

Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak".

Pray tell.

Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Are you familiar with a concept known as societal psychology, or evolutionary psychology?

Evolutionists think that opposing their religion is "politically incorrect". Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

That would make it a state endorsed religion.

Thus, let us remove the unconstitutional Darwinist religion from schools. Intelligent Design is the only explanation for life.

So, what part of the 2nd law doesn't apply to said intelligently designed life?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:10:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Evolution is based on pure random chance.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is not random.

There is no evidence backing it up.

We have many many transitional fossils.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact.

A theory is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence. A law is just a description of a phenomenon, it doesn't say why. Theories say why. The theory of gravity is also a theory. Does that mean it has no evidence?

Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

We have seen nylon evolve the ability to digest nylon both in the wild and in the lab.

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground

Again, evolution works through natural selection which is not random. The second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system and says entropy will increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system because it is receiving an enormous amount of energy from the sun.

--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird.

We have found Archaeopteryx which is a transitional reptile-bird transitional and homo erectus which is a transitional human-ape.

Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

I will let Stephen refute you himself:

Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics.

Actually according to science we are one species and there is no evidence one race is superior to the other. Also creationists who believe in micro-evolution, evolution within a species also believe in natural selection too. Natural selection is just something we see in nature and most creationists believe in it too. That does not mean they caused eugenics.

Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak".

Evolution just says that people with some traits survive better than those with other traits. It just states what actually happens not how we should run our survival.

Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Why does us coming from fish mean morals don't exist. If God created the first life and allowed it to evolve how does that mean that suddenly his absolute morality doesn't exist? If I were to ask you why you think morality exists you would find that your reasons have nothing to do with how we were created, they have more to do with societal and life philosophy or religion.

Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Christianity is not banned in schools. I have friends who talked about their religion all the time in high school and teachers knew about it and were fine.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:13:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 12:16:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

As opposed to an actual religion that does that...

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

Yes. Which is why its called "the theory of evolution" as opposed to Darwin's Law or some such moniker.


Well, no, a scientific theory is supposed to be tested. Darwinian evolution has not even been observed, much less tested, as you acknowledge. So evolution should properly be called a hypothesis. But, of course, saying 'hypothesis' all the time is pretty annoying.


Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance.

If you are familiar with the line of logic you are using, that would be true in a close system with no addition source of energy. Currently, the Earth is being 'powered' by a fairly large nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away, and it seems said reactor has enough fuel for billions of more years.


I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.


Um... pterodactyl? What do you consider homo erectus? What is your benchmark for what constitutes a transitional specie?

My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.


So there are no such thing as Christian evolutionists?

yes, of course there are, though it is, at best, 'extra biblical', shall we say. The issue is really the other side of the coin: There are no technically competent people who can honestly accept evolution as settled science. Honest and thoughtful people may accept it as mankind's best guess, but there is in fact massive dishonesty on the evo side, in presenting evolution as anything other than elaborate speculation. It's educated guessing, mind you, but guessing.


Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Are you familiar with a concept known as societal psychology, or evolutionary psychology?


Most moderns are complete imbeciles in the realm of the mind. Hey, it's true. A coherent grasp of the concept of morality is completely beyond the typical 21st century evolutionist.
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 1:41:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

As opposed to an actual religion that does that...

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

Yes. Which is why its called "the theory of evolution" as opposed to Darwin's Law or some such moniker.


Well, no, a scientific theory is supposed to be tested. Darwinian evolution has not even been observed, much less tested, as you acknowledge. So evolution should properly be called a hypothesis. But, of course, saying 'hypothesis' all the time is pretty annoying.

I can sort of relate on this point, sure.


Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance.

If you are familiar with the line of logic you are using, that would be true in a close system with no addition source of energy. Currently, the Earth is being 'powered' by a fairly large nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away, and it seems said reactor has enough fuel for billions of more years.


I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.

Isn't that effectively just changing terminology to suit the conclusion?


Um... pterodactyl? What do you consider homo erectus? What is your benchmark for what constitutes a transitional specie?

My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

I fail to understand how the various hominoids don't suit that criteria. On the one hand, we have the argument that 'wow, this all looks really designed', but some how that same squint your eyes and cock your head examination doesn't apply to the various primate fossils we have found vis a vis evolution.

Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.

Look, IDers, nobody has demonstrated an intelligence outside the earth, much less one that has the capacity to create whole cloth the divergence of life we see on the earth, and place it. See, I can do it to.


So there are no such thing as Christian evolutionists?

yes, of course there are, though it is, at best, 'extra biblical', shall we say. The issue is really the other side of the coin: There are no technically competent people who can honestly accept evolution as settled science. Honest and thoughtful people may accept it as mankind's best guess, but there is in fact massive dishonesty on the evo side, in presenting evolution as anything other than elaborate speculation. It's educated guessing, mind you, but guessing.

So then explain how ID exists as something more than uneducated guessing, that being speculation of what the educated guessing of Evo does.


Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Are you familiar with a concept known as societal psychology, or evolutionary psychology?


Most moderns are complete imbeciles in the realm of the mind. Hey, it's true. A coherent grasp of the concept of morality is completely beyond the typical 21st century evolutionist.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 2:07:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:41:42 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...

I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.

Isn't that effectively just changing terminology to suit the conclusion?

Well, no, I think it's a completely different concept. You could argue that the information model is just a restatement of "it requires intelligence", that would be a fair charge.

There's something to the general observation that un-maintained things tend to run down and fail before long, but I don't think that's really the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Close, but not the same.


My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

I fail to understand how the various hominoids don't suit that criteria.

How has it been tested that B actually descended from A? They look like they might have. The fossil record suggests some sort of evolution or gradualism, sure. But it only suggests it, is my point. Finding further points of correlation between specimens is only refining the hypothesis, not testing it. My problem is that Darwinian evolution has to be possible in order to be an option, and I just can't see that it is. I cannot see that random zappage of DNA can produce novel features, and on a grand scale, and over vast periods of time. That seems pure abracadbra to me, just not the way noise driven processes proceed.

On the one hand, we have the argument that 'wow, this all looks really designed', but some how that same squint your eyes and cock your head examination doesn't apply to the various primate fossils we have found vis a vis evolution.

Yeah, because design is known. We know how design goes, so we can say that something looks designed. We do it all the time in real life, and we're almost always right in identifying designed things.

But as I say, there is no known mechanism where you shake rocks in a bag and get a pyramid out (there are, however, equations for random stimuli that show quite the opposite). So evolution is not comparing the data to known mechanisms, it's making up a mechanism to explain the data.


Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.

Look, IDers, nobody has demonstrated an intelligence outside the earth,

Boy, this logic flaw runs deep with you guys!!!! Two wrongs don't make a right. Evolution doesn't become accurate because somebody else is wrong, lol.

The fact is that evolution is speculation and nothing more. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with quality of ID arguments.


So then explain how ID exists as something more than uneducated guessing, that being speculation of what the educated guessing of Evo does.

Yeah, I also call this the PeeWee Herman mode of argument: "I know you are, but what am I"?

You really think this kind of petulance makes the case that evolution is science?
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 2:24:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
...

I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.

Isn't that effectively just changing terminology to suit the conclusion?

Well, no, I think it's a completely different concept. You could argue that the information model is just a restatement of "it requires intelligence", that would be a fair charge.

There's something to the general observation that un-maintained things tend to run down and fail before long, but I don't think that's really the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Close, but not the same.


My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

I fail to understand how the various hominoids don't suit that criteria.

How has it been tested that B actually descended from A? They look like they might have. The fossil record suggests some sort of evolution or gradualism, sure. But it only suggests it, is my point. Finding further points of correlation between specimens is only refining the hypothesis, not testing it. My problem is that Darwinian evolution has to be possible in order to be an option, and I just can't see that it is. I cannot see that random zappage of DNA can produce novel features, and on a grand scale, and over vast periods of time. That seems pure abracadbra to me, just not the way noise driven processes proceed.

But there can be random zappage to cause cancer. We discussed this before, and I still see it as an impasse, that some how the genetic material is only allowed to cause harm when it alters, not benefit.

On the one hand, we have the argument that 'wow, this all looks really designed', but some how that same squint your eyes and cock your head examination doesn't apply to the various primate fossils we have found vis a vis evolution.

Yeah, because design is known. We know how design goes, so we can say that something looks designed. We do it all the time in real life, and we're almost always right in identifying designed things.

... because humans in general designed it.

But as I say, there is no known mechanism where you shake rocks in a bag and get a pyramid out (there are, however, equations for random stimuli that show quite the opposite). So evolution is not comparing the data to known mechanisms, it's making up a mechanism to explain the data.

This assumes you have a "goal" at the end, though. What if there is no goal/pyramid. It just goes.


Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.

Look, IDers, nobody has demonstrated an intelligence outside the earth,

Boy, this logic flaw runs deep with you guys!!!! Two wrongs don't make a right. Evolution doesn't become accurate because somebody else is wrong, lol.

However you don't even have a 'wrong' to call a wrong! That is the point, ID rely literally on invention of what might have caused something to exist.

The fact is that evolution is speculation and nothing more. This fact has absolutely nothing to do with quality of ID arguments.

Speculations. ID speculations. An argument hinges from a reason, ID specifically originates from the lack of a reason.


So then explain how ID exists as something more than uneducated guessing, that being speculation of what the educated guessing of Evo does.

Yeah, I also call this the PeeWee Herman mode of argument: "I know you are, but what am I"? You really think this kind of petulance makes the case that evolution is science?

Try answering the question, though. I get it. You don't like the question. You find the question possibly insulting for some reason. But don't answer said question. Evolution points to what we see, and what we can reasonably piece together to draw an idea of what went on. What does ID draw on other than human experience?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 3:06:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 2:24:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...
But there can be random zappage to cause cancer.

And that's genetics. That is, it's the modification of pre-existing information. A bit of code gets deranged and starts operating out of spec.

This is totally different from the creation of novel information. It's easy to fall asleep and drive into a telephone pole, but finding your way to someplace you've never been before requires the deliberate addition of new information. Consulting google maps, for instance.


This assumes you have a "goal" at the end, though. What if there is no goal/pyramid. It just goes.

And "it just goes" goes from a bag of rocks to a bag of rocks. What happens in random processes is that things "spread out". They tend to find a plurality of low energy states, is what happens, and like I say, it's a pretty quantifiable sort of thing. So you fly a plane into a tall building and you get a pile of rubble close to the ground. You shake a pile of rubble and you get - a pile of rubble.

That is the point, ID rely literally on invention of what might have caused something to exist.

No, design exists. Life shares an abundance of features consistent with design. Deal with it. This is part of the profound dishonesty of the evo crowd, this unwillingness to admit to the obvious.

...Evolution points to what we see, and what we can reasonably piece together to draw an idea of what went on.

Yes, that's what I said. It's an untested, unobserved explanation that was invented to provide a naturalistic explanation of the emergence of life. I don't fault that, actually, I'm just clear eyed about the fact that it's an untested, unobserved explanation. And, in my opinion, one that could not possibly work.

What does ID draw on other than human experience?

Boy, it sounds like you're saying that it's ok to just make up explanations, but not draw on human experience when doing science. I think that's actually a full 180 degrees out of phase with what science meant not so long ago. A synonym for "evidence experienced by humans" is "empirical evidence".
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 7:06:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:06:54 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/13/2016 2:24:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...
But there can be random zappage to cause cancer.

And that's genetics. That is, it's the modification of pre-existing information. A bit of code gets deranged and starts operating out of spec.

And proceeds to make things that didn't exist. Much like the mutations mentioned for ToE.

This is totally different from the creation of novel information. It's easy to fall asleep and drive into a telephone pole, but finding your way to someplace you've never been before requires the deliberate addition of new information. Consulting google maps, for instance.

Again, you infer a goal.


This assumes you have a "goal" at the end, though. What if there is no goal/pyramid. It just goes.

And "it just goes" goes from a bag of rocks to a bag of rocks. What happens in random processes is that things "spread out". They tend to find a plurality of low energy states, is what happens, and like I say, it's a pretty quantifiable sort of thing. So you fly a plane into a tall building and you get a pile of rubble close to the ground. You shake a pile of rubble and you get - a pile of rubble.

But not cancer. See the problem?

That is the point, ID rely literally on invention of what might have caused something to exist.

No, design exists.

By humans. That basis of my last suggestion in this current reply.

Life shares an abundance of features consistent with design. Deal with it. This is part of the profound dishonesty of the evo crowd, this unwillingness to admit to the obvious.

Then please explain how one would know the difference between adaptation and design.

...Evolution points to what we see, and what we can reasonably piece together to draw an idea of what went on.

Yes, that's what I said. It's an untested, unobserved explanation that was invented to provide a naturalistic explanation of the emergence of life. I don't fault that, actually, I'm just clear eyed about the fact that it's an untested, unobserved explanation. And, in my opinion, one that could not possibly work.

What does ID draw on other than human experience?

Boy, it sounds like you're saying that it's ok to just make up explanations, but not draw on human experience when doing science.

Humans design things. So, we are going to see design in things. We are our only experience with what design entails. When it comes to evolution, that is a process independent of how humans go about things. Is what I am alluding to is that humanity might be poisoning the well on the matter of ID by a smidge of egotism.

I think that's actually a full 180 degrees out of phase with what science meant not so long ago. A synonym for "evidence experienced by humans" is "empirical evidence".

Empirical is independent of us. A fossil is independent of us. Saying what is "designed" on the other hand, isn't. I am not certain I am explaining myself on this, so give me a few to clarify what I am trying to say.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2016 7:53:17 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 7:06:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...
But not cancer. See the problem?

No, I think I answered this. Cancer starts with lots and lots of information, but goes awry. Cancer is the brakes failing on a runaway 18 wheeler, it's not that anything new is invented.


Then please explain how one would know the difference between adaptation and design.

It's much the same as the cancer answer: Adaptation starts with information. Being automatic and fault tolerant and the like, these are marks of sophisticated design. You have to work hard to make adaptable things.

Design starts with simplicity and adds the information.


Humans design things. So, we are going to see design in things. We are our only experience with what design entails. When it comes to evolution, that is a process independent of how humans go about things. Is what I am alluding to is that humanity might be poisoning the well on the matter of ID by a smidge of egotism.


Well, I've never gotten this egotism business, this attempt to shame creationists. But aside from that, sure, we're going to prefer what we know and/or can work with comfortably. But that applies equally to evolution. I've often pointed out how humans have a strong instinct for finding patterns and we have to be careful that any apparent sequence of fossils, for instance, isn't imposed by the observer. Once a pattern has been suggested, it can be very hard to 'unsee' it.


Empirical is independent of us.

Well, actually not. The realization came as a bit of a surprise to me too, but there's actually a massive philosophical assumption behind 'empirical evidence'. That assumption is that our perceptions should be trusted, and should be the thing we trust most. That's a philosophical assumption perfectly consistent with me being a designed being, but evolution can't give any particular basis for such an assumption. We would have evolved to survive, not know the truth. Evolution can explain being horny, but it really can't explain why man should seek truth (whatever that is!)

...Saying what is "designed" on the other hand, isn't. I am not certain I am explaining myself on this, so give me a few to clarify what I am trying to say.

Some of what you said earlier, you may be choking on God designed, and I get that. But for the sake of argument, you can leave God out of the equation. The ID argument is merely that life is consistent with design, and doesn't attempt to deduce who did the designing. It's kind of the mirror of evolution explicitly avoiding the question of how the first form(s) got started.
This space for rent.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:13:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:16:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

As opposed to an actual religion that does that...

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

Yes. Which is why its called "the theory of evolution" as opposed to Darwin's Law or some such moniker.


Well, no, a scientific theory is supposed to be tested. Darwinian evolution has not even been observed, much less tested, as you acknowledge. So evolution should properly be called a hypothesis. But, of course, saying 'hypothesis' all the time is pretty annoying.


Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance.

If you are familiar with the line of logic you are using, that would be true in a close system with no addition source of energy. Currently, the Earth is being 'powered' by a fairly large nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away, and it seems said reactor has enough fuel for billions of more years.


I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.


Um... pterodactyl? What do you consider homo erectus? What is your benchmark for what constitutes a transitional specie?

My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.


So there are no such thing as Christian evolutionists?

yes, of course there are, though it is, at best, 'extra biblical', shall we say. The issue is really the other side of the coin: There are no technically competent people who can honestly accept evolution as settled science. Honest and thoughtful people may accept it as mankind's best guess, but there is in fact massive dishonesty on the evo side, in presenting evolution as anything other than elaborate speculation. It's educated guessing, mind you, but guessing.


Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Are you familiar with a concept known as societal psychology, or evolutionary psychology?


Most moderns are complete imbeciles in the realm of the mind. Hey, it's true. A coherent grasp of the concept of morality is completely beyond the typical 21st century evolutionist.

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 1:10:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 1:10:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Evolution is based on pure random chance.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is not random.

There is no evidence backing it up.

We have many many transitional fossils.

Answers in Genesis has proven transitional fossils to be fraudulent. You know the Piltdown man, right?

Plus, the idea of transitional fossils is circular. What makes a fossil transitional? You'd need to assume evolution is true.


Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact.

A theory is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence. A law is just a description of a phenomenon, it doesn't say why. Theories say why. The theory of gravity is also a theory. Does that mean it has no evidence?

The theory of gravity has no evidence because we don't know WHY gravity occurs. We know that gravity does occur because of the LAW of gravity, but the THEORY of gravity is unproven.


Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

We have seen nylon evolve the ability to digest nylon both in the wild and in the lab.

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground

Again, evolution works through natural selection which is not random. The second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system and says entropy will increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system because it is receiving an enormous amount of energy from the sun.

The Sun's energy only increases entropy.


--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird.

We have found Archaeopteryx which is a transitional reptile-bird transitional and homo erectus which is a transitional human-ape.

The archaeopteryx was a pure bird. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

I will let Stephen refute you himself:



Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Evolutionists saw that there were no transitional fossils, so they invented punctuated equilibrium. It's like watching a flat earther debate.


Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics.

Actually according to science we are one species and there is no evidence one race is superior to the other. Also creationists who believe in micro-evolution, evolution within a species also believe in natural selection too. Natural selection is just something we see in nature and most creationists believe in it too. That does not mean they caused eugenics.

Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak".

Evolution just says that people with some traits survive better than those with other traits. It just states what actually happens not how we should run our survival.

Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Why does us coming from fish mean morals don't exist. If God created the first life and allowed it to evolve how does that mean that suddenly his absolute morality doesn't exist? If I were to ask you why you think morality exists you would find that your reasons have nothing to do with how we were created, they have more to do with societal and life philosophy or religion.

Evolution endorses materialism and therefore moral nihilism.


Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Christianity is not banned in schools. I have friends who talked about their religion all the time in high school and teachers knew about it and were fine.

Christianity is being censored because it is politically incorrect. Christians are being persecuted more and more.

If you were right, then why are there still monkeys?
:) nac
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 3:08:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:10:13 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:10:42 PM, distraff wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Evolution is based on pure random chance.

Evolution is based on natural selection which is not random.

There is no evidence backing it up.

We have many many transitional fossils.

Answers in Genesis has proven transitional fossils to be fraudulent. You know the Piltdown man, right?

How does one fraud over 100 years ago mean a whole field of science is fake? Does one fake doctor in the 1940s make all modern scientists fake?

Plus, the idea of transitional fossils is circular. What makes a fossil transitional? You'd need to assume evolution is true.

According to evolution humans evolved from apes so according to evolution we should find fossils between humans and apes below the first human fossils and above the first ape fossils and see them with more and more human features as you look higher in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed because we actually find the fossils. No circular reasoning is used, we are just testing predictions.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact.

A theory is a hypothesis with a lot of evidence. A law is just a description of a phenomenon, it doesn't say why. Theories say why. The theory of gravity is also a theory. Does that mean it has no evidence?

The theory of gravity has no evidence because we don't know WHY gravity occurs. We know that gravity does occur because of the LAW of gravity, but the THEORY of gravity is unproven.

You are confused. The theory of gravity is often called the law of gravity. They refer to the same thing. The theory of gravity states that the same attraction that makes an apple drop to the ground also makes the planets go around and operates according to several mathematical rules and it has mountains of evidence. The theory of relativity is also a theory.

Educate yourself on what a theory is:
http://www.livescience.com...

Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

We have seen nylon evolve the ability to digest nylon both in the wild and in the lab.

Again, evolution works through natural selection which is not random. The second law of thermodynamics only works in a closed system and says entropy will increase in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system because it is receiving an enormous amount of energy from the sun.

The Sun's energy only increases entropy.

No, its energy is used to build life. If the sun died then life and all its complexity would die and fall into complete disorder because no energy was coming into the system. Without new material all bodies will eventually fall apart.

We have found Archaeopteryx which is a transitional reptile-bird transitional and homo erectus which is a transitional human-ape.

The archaeopteryx was a pure bird. (https://answersingenesis.org...)

Definitely not. It has teeth and claws. It doesn't have fused top wing bone and tail bone and has distinct bones just like reptiles. Look for yourself, it has a very transitional skeleton:
https://pterosaurheresies.files.wordpress.com...

I will let Stephen refute you himself:



Transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features.]

Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am -- for I have become a major target of these practices.

I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.

Evolutionists saw that there were no transitional fossils, so they invented punctuated equilibrium. It's like watching a flat earther debate.

Stephen says it himself. He says there are transitional fossils. He just says there are not enough to prove a completely gradual evolution. He even says it himself:
"Transitions are often found in the fossil record."

Actually according to science we are one species and there is no evidence one race is superior to the other. Also creationists who believe in micro-evolution, evolution within a species also believe in natural selection too. Natural selection is just something we see in nature and most creationists believe in it too. That does not mean they caused eugenics.

Evolution just says that people with some traits survive better than those with other traits. It just states what actually happens not how we should run our survival.

Why does us coming from fish mean morals don't exist. If God created the first life and allowed it to evolve how does that mean that suddenly his absolute morality doesn't exist? If I were to ask you why you think morality exists you would find that your reasons have nothing to do with how we were created, they have more to do with societal and life philosophy or religion.

Evolution endorses materialism and therefore moral nihilism.

No, it just says we evolved from mammals. It doesn't say we should just care about buying stuff. Many Christians who are not materialists believe God made the human race by allowing us to evolve from apes. How is that any worse than making us from dirt like in the bible?

Christianity is not banned in schools. I have friends who talked about their religion all the time in high school and teachers knew about it and were fine.

Christianity is being censored because it is politically incorrect. Christians are being persecuted more and more.

If you were right, then why are there still monkeys?

Because we evolved to be on the ground while they evolved to be in the trees. They are very good in the trees and survive much better there than we would. We never wiped them out because we lived in different places.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:35:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 3:08:36 AM, distraff wrote:
...
According to evolution humans evolved from apes so according to evolution we should find fossils between humans and apes below the first human fossils and above the first ape fossils and see them with more and more human features as you look higher in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed because we actually find the fossils. No circular reasoning is used, we are just testing predictions.


I'm not an expert on fossils, at all, but I know this is pretty fanciful. This idea you have that the depth of fossils in the ground has some nice obvious proportion to age is pretty naive. It's nowhere near that simple. So there's a whole lot of interpretation that goes on. To put it nicely you could call it an interactive process. That sounds better than 'circular', right?
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:38:03 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
...

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.

What made you think I support evolution?

What I definitely don't support is suppression of ideas. Let the evolutionists have their say. Just let them do it honestly, and let us creationists have our say as well.
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 11:55:05 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 7:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/13/2016 7:06:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...
But not cancer. See the problem?

No, I think I answered this. Cancer starts with lots and lots of information, but goes awry. Cancer is the brakes failing on a runaway 18 wheeler, it's not that anything new is invented.

You don't consider a self-destructive mass of cells to be "new" in a body, but you do consider a some what longer finger nail, denser bone, harder tooth etc to be "novel"?


Then please explain how one would know the difference between adaptation and design.

It's much the same as the cancer answer: Adaptation starts with information. Being automatic and fault tolerant and the like, these are marks of sophisticated design. You have to work hard to make adaptable things. Design starts with simplicity and adds the information.


Humans design things. So, we are going to see design in things. We are our only experience with what design entails. When it comes to evolution, that is a process independent of how humans go about things. Is what I am alluding to is that humanity might be poisoning the well on the matter of ID by a smidge of egotism.


Well, I've never gotten this egotism business, this attempt to shame creationists. But aside from that, sure, we're going to prefer what we know and/or can work with comfortably. But that applies equally to evolution. I've often pointed out how humans have a strong instinct for finding patterns and we have to be careful that any apparent sequence of fossils, for instance, isn't imposed by the observer. Once a pattern has been suggested, it can be very hard to 'unsee' it.

Especially when we see that pattern being tracked in other life forms on smaller scales.


Empirical is independent of us.

Well, actually not. The realization came as a bit of a surprise to me too, but there's actually a massive philosophical assumption behind 'empirical evidence'. That assumption is that our perceptions should be trusted, and should be the thing we trust most.

When trying to apply conclusions, sure, but something that is empirically true doesn't need us to test it to exist. Water freezes at the same temp given pressure, plants photosynthesize, etc. We don't need to observe or postulate about those processes, they happen, reliably, independent of us.

That's a philosophical assumption perfectly consistent with me being a designed being, but evolution can't give any particular basis for such an assumption. We would have evolved to survive,

and we have/are.

not know the truth. Evolution can explain being horny, but it really can't explain why man should seek truth (whatever that is!)

Because its not supposed to? That starts turning into philosophy, as in what an advanced mind will ponder.

...Saying what is "designed" on the other hand, isn't. I am not certain I am explaining myself on this, so give me a few to clarify what I am trying to say.

Some of what you said earlier, you may be choking on God designed, and I get that. But for the sake of argument, you can leave God out of the equation. The ID argument is merely that life is consistent with design, and doesn't attempt to deduce who did the designing. It's kind of the mirror of evolution explicitly avoiding the question of how the first form(s) got started.

Doesn't that enter a bizarre form of circularity? Apparently intelligence can only come from intelligence, it can never develop.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,001
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:34:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 11:35:25 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 3:08:36 AM, distraff wrote:
...
According to evolution humans evolved from apes so according to evolution we should find fossils between humans and apes below the first human fossils and above the first ape fossils and see them with more and more human features as you look higher in the fossil record. This prediction is confirmed because we actually find the fossils. No circular reasoning is used, we are just testing predictions.


I'm not an expert on fossils, at all, but I know this is pretty fanciful. This idea you have that the depth of fossils in the ground has some nice obvious proportion to age is pretty naive. It's nowhere near that simple. So there's a whole lot of interpretation that goes on. To put it nicely you could call it an interactive process. That sounds better than 'circular', right?

We have plenty of good dating methods for dating fossils. If evolution is true and these dating methods are true then we should find these hominid fossils in the right place and order.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:39:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
For cell to have first formed organelles,
cytoplasm, and it actually being alive
must have happened somehow to the
same cell.

And we don't know for certain that
those gasses where even there.

It is literally an assumption.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:49:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 11:55:05 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/13/2016 7:53:17 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/13/2016 7:06:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
...
But not cancer. See the problem?

No, I think I answered this. Cancer starts with lots and lots of information, but goes awry. Cancer is the brakes failing on a runaway 18 wheeler, it's not that anything new is invented.

You don't consider a self-destructive mass of cells to be "new" in a body, but you do consider a some what longer finger nail, denser bone, harder tooth etc to be "novel"?

I don't consider any of them to be novel. Those are all just turning the knobs on a pre-existing radio. The emergence of the radio itself, that's novelty.

So the eye is novel, to use Darwin's classic example. And I think it's complete fantasy to think the eye evolved.


When trying to apply conclusions, sure, but something that is empirically true doesn't need us to test it to exist. Water freezes at the same temp given pressure,

How would you know water always freezes at the same temperature unless you had taken enough samples to conclude it's always the same? So yeah, it's totally testing.

plants photosynthesize, etc. We don't need to observe or postulate about those processes, they happen, reliably, independent of us.


We have to observe them in the first place to even know about them. And we can't know something happens 'reliably' until we've accumulated multiple observations.

So maybe this doesn't quite sink in yet: Darwinian evolution has never been observed nor reproduced. The idea is that small scale changes accumulate to produce novel features, but this has never been observed. Only the small scale changes have been observed, not the accumulation of them.

So there's no comparison to water freezing, or photosynthesis, or any other bit of science you might be familiar with. Evolution is alleged to have happened, and by a process that is not known to happen. It's two layers of speculation.


not know the truth. Evolution can explain being horny, but it really can't explain why man should seek truth (whatever that is!)

Because its not supposed to? That starts turning into philosophy, as in what an advanced mind will ponder.

Science is a search for truth. What does it mean to be accurate, or correct, or any other term like that? These are synonyms for true. Science attempts to know about nature, not merely have natural reactions.


Doesn't that enter a bizarre form of circularity? Apparently intelligence can only come from intelligence, it can never develop.

I'd say we have absolutely no idea where intelligence comes from. We don't really even know what it is. What we do know is that intelligence can design, and life looks more like something designed than it looks like a pile of rocks.
This space for rent.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 12:58:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe. Conveniently, evolutionists use the excuse that "evolution takes millions of years" to handwave that away. These convenient handwaves are a hallmark of pseudoscience; pseudoscientists don't care about evidence, they care only about supporting their conclusion.

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird. Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

But if evolution was untrue, what makes atheists hold onto it so firmly? The reason is that it's a religion. Evolutionists believe that whatever "scientists" write in books must be true. [1]

The religion of evolution is heavily detrimental to our society. Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics. Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak". Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum. Evolutionists think that opposing their religion is "politically incorrect". Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Thus, let us remove the unconstitutional Darwinist religion from schools. Intelligent Design is the only explanation for life.

Sources
[1]https://www.chick.com...

If evolution = religion and evolution = bad then

Religion = bad

That is maths.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:00:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 11:38:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
...

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.

What made you think I support evolution?

What I definitely don't support is suppression of ideas. Let the evolutionists have their say. Just let them do it honestly, and let us creationists have our say as well.

Creationists have had their say for many centuries, their time is done, they have been forced to deal with facts over myths and superstitions. Many have accepted those facts because they took the time to honestly understand them, you haven't bothered to make that effort.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 4,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:19:55 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:00:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2016 11:38:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
...

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.

What made you think I support evolution?

What I definitely don't support is suppression of ideas. Let the evolutionists have their say. Just let them do it honestly, and let us creationists have our say as well.

Creationists have had their say for many centuries, their time is done, they have been forced to deal with facts over myths and superstitions. Many have accepted those facts because they took the time to honestly understand them, you haven't bothered to make that effort.

Ok, the pompous buffoon shows up. But thanks, you illustrate why I don't support suppression of ideas - some human has to do the suppressing. I don't want that. I want to get my information from people who are too busy doing real work to care about running other people's lives.
This space for rent.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 2:20:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/13/2016 1:13:44 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/13/2016 12:16:35 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

As opposed to an actual religion that does that...

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe.

Yes. Which is why its called "the theory of evolution" as opposed to Darwin's Law or some such moniker.


Well, no, a scientific theory is supposed to be tested. Darwinian evolution has not even been observed, much less tested, as you acknowledge. So evolution should properly be called a hypothesis. But, of course, saying 'hypothesis' all the time is pretty annoying.


Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance.

If you are familiar with the line of logic you are using, that would be true in a close system with no addition source of energy. Currently, the Earth is being 'powered' by a fairly large nuclear reactor about 93 million miles away, and it seems said reactor has enough fuel for billions of more years.


I agree that it's a stretch to apply the 2nd law to this issue. However, the evo answer is not much better. The better model that's come out of the ID movement is the comparison to information theory. The sun is clearly not a source of information.


Um... pterodactyl? What do you consider homo erectus? What is your benchmark for what constitutes a transitional specie?

My standard would be that there is some external way to prove that species C descended from B which descended from A. That would make B transitional. Making ever more guesses based on appearances just creates the illusion of proof when it remains speculation (a.k.a. 'hypothesis').

Look, evos, nobody has demonstrated that Darwinian evolution can EVER happen, much less that it's the default explanation for any new fossil that's found.


So there are no such thing as Christian evolutionists?

yes, of course there are, though it is, at best, 'extra biblical', shall we say. The issue is really the other side of the coin: There are no technically competent people who can honestly accept evolution as settled science. Honest and thoughtful people may accept it as mankind's best guess, but there is in fact massive dishonesty on the evo side, in presenting evolution as anything other than elaborate speculation. It's educated guessing, mind you, but guessing.


Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum.

Are you familiar with a concept known as societal psychology, or evolutionary psychology?


Most moderns are complete imbeciles in the realm of the mind. Hey, it's true. A coherent grasp of the concept of morality is completely beyond the typical 21st century evolutionist.

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.

When exactly was it proven a lie?

That being, when was something contrary to evolution "proven"?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:03:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

Thus, you would rather trust the education of children to priests who have a track record of child molestation?
Religion masquerades as historical truth which is far worse than science which attempts to understand the universe?
Religion would prefer that knowledge be inaccessible and indecipherable. That's why they use indecipherable text to hide their lies.

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

This is far more credible the the religious alternative. Adam and Eve - who lived to be 900 year olds! lol What a joke!

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe. Conveniently, evolutionists use the excuse that "evolution takes millions of years" to handwave that away. These convenient handwaves are a hallmark of pseudoscience; pseudoscientists don't care about evidence, they care only about supporting their conclusion.

Yeah, those lizards with wings they found in China must be just an illusion! lol

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird. Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Thermodynamics and evolution are the same thing? Huh? This person must be religious! lol Only a religious fool could come to such an absurd conclusion.

But if evolution was untrue, what makes atheists hold onto it so firmly? The reason is that it's a religion. Evolutionists believe that whatever "scientists" write in books must be true. [1]

Yeah, don't let them facts get in ya way! lol Halaloooooooo ya !!!!! Broooother!

The religion of evolution is heavily detrimental to our society. Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics. Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak". Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum. Evolutionists think that opposing their religion is "politically incorrect". Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Hmmmmm!!!!!!!!! Is that why the Bible calls the king of Egypt "pharaoh" and Mosses gets his full name. Now, if that's not racism, then I'll be a monkeys uncle! lol
Truthfuls
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:41:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:03:05 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/13/2016 3:02:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
Even though it is taught as science at secular--atheistic--public schools, the "scientific" theory of evolution is, in fact, a religion. Its ideas about how life came to be are speculative at best, so teaching said religion at school is child abuse. Evolution is a secular religion that masquerades as science.

Thus, you would rather trust the education of children to priests who have a track record of child molestation?
Religion masquerades as historical truth which is far worse than science which attempts to understand the universe?
Religion would prefer that knowledge be inaccessible and indecipherable. That's why they use indecipherable text to hide their lies.

Even to a layman, evolution is ridiculous. Evolution states that we started as dots wiggling in a strange goo. The dots then became sperm-like polywogs with smiley faces. Then, they grew tails and turned into fish. Then, they turned into monkeys. [1] Evolution is based on pure random chance. There is no evidence backing it up.

This is far more credible the the religious alternative. Adam and Eve - who lived to be 900 year olds! lol What a joke!

Evolution's lack of evidence makes it a theory rather than a law or a fact. Evolution has never been observed in the lab, in the wild, or anywhere in the universe. Conveniently, evolutionists use the excuse that "evolution takes millions of years" to handwave that away. These convenient handwaves are a hallmark of pseudoscience; pseudoscientists don't care about evidence, they care only about supporting their conclusion.

Yeah, those lizards with wings they found in China must be just an illusion! lol

Evolution completely contradicts reality. It violates the second law of thermodynamics because it says that organisms get more complex through random chance. It states that information can be created by pure randomness. And it says that transitional fossils should litter the ground--yet we have never found a crockoduck, an ape-human, or a dinosaur-bird. Evolutionist and biologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted that "the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."

Thermodynamics and evolution are the same thing? Huh? This person must be religious! lol Only a religious fool could come to such an absurd conclusion.

But if evolution was untrue, what makes atheists hold onto it so firmly? The reason is that it's a religion. Evolutionists believe that whatever "scientists" write in books must be true. [1]

Yeah, don't let them facts get in ya way! lol Halaloooooooo ya !!!!! Broooother!

The religion of evolution is heavily detrimental to our society. Evolution's doctrine that the strong survive and the weak perish causes racism and eugenics. Evolution advocates a final solution for the "weak". Evolution tells you that morals don't exist because we're all pond scum. Evolutionists think that opposing their religion is "politically incorrect". Blind adherence to evolution has led to the banning of Christianity in schools. [1]

Hmmmmm!!!!!!!!! Is that why the Bible calls the king of Egypt "pharaoh" and Mosses gets his full name. Now, if that's not racism, then I'll be a monkeys uncle! lol


Mr. Monkey's Uncle,

Your rantings about religion do not change the fact that evolution is completely false. It's insane pseudoscientific drivel that causes racism.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:19:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:41:46 PM, Truthfuls wrote:

Your rantings about religion do not change the fact that evolution is completely false. It's insane pseudoscientific drivel that causes racism.

Just another hit and run religious fanatic who avoids truth like wax avoids the rain!. lol
Nivek
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 5:25:32 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:41:46 PM, Truthfuls wrote:
Your rantings about religion do not change the fact that evolution is completely false. It's insane pseudoscientific drivel that causes racism.

Not really. Scientists, particularly leading figures in the social sphere will most likely push the results that they receive with a sense of political agenda. If a particular scientist have an amazing loop in science, they can result from being harmless to agents of radical change. Galileo, Lowell & Richard Dawkins represent the latter. The former consists of the likes of Newton and Einstein. This has nothing to do with evolution but rather it has to do with the individual itself. Dawkins seem to believe that theologians did not contribute to science whatsoever and of course this sort of oversimplification is false, as there were religious figures pioneering science. They may not contribute the size of a revolutionary scale in science, but the fact still remains that they were still committed to the advancement of science, especially those who published works numbering in thousands. Of course, nobody gives a sh!t, I don't give a damn about Galileo's observation of Saturn, because we have much sophisticated observatories that can observe it more reliably and more accurately. Just as I don't give a damn about Galileo, nobody gives a damn about Herschel's catalog, considering how dated that document is. No one wants to sift through observations of tycho brahe's thesis, as it is obviously self evident that observatories confer a position of superiority over wooden instruments.

Science has nothing to do with political movements. Individuals may push for their goals, but do not assume as though science is part of a conspiracy to trump the religious idea of being gifted. Instead of critiquing evolution, you should rather critique the narcissist likes of richard dawkins and whatever scientist that currently holds anti-religious rhetoric. Besides the only way to get under the skin of self-indulged narcissists is to attack their ego so I'm pretty sure Dawkins like to have his twitter contested with attention. Leave science out of this.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:59:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 2:19:55 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 2:00:30 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/14/2016 11:38:03 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 4/14/2016 1:03:15 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
...

Why do you support evolution? Evolution is an unproven lie that should be removed from the face of the Earth.

What made you think I support evolution?

What I definitely don't support is suppression of ideas. Let the evolutionists have their say. Just let them do it honestly, and let us creationists have our say as well.

Creationists have had their say for many centuries, their time is done, they have been forced to deal with facts over myths and superstitions. Many have accepted those facts because they took the time to honestly understand them, you haven't bothered to make that effort.

Ok, the pompous buffoon shows up.

In response to the uneducated troll.

But thanks, you illustrate why I don't support suppression of ideas - some human has to do the suppressing. I don't want that.

But, you aren't putting forth ideas, you're trotting out denials fueled by your religious beliefs. Ideas don't get suppressed.

I want to get my information from people who are too busy doing real work to care about running other people's lives.

But, you don't bring information to the discussion nor do you care about real work.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth