Anti-Evolutionist Scientific Explanations On Human Origin-ALL VIEWPOINTS WELCOME

Your political opinions are noted and rejected by scientists.

 

The TOE does look at the past but so do other sciences Astronomy by its nature of observation sees things as they were not are even in our own Solar System there is a delay of minutes or an hour from what is really being studied, Archeology is another one and Geology that doesn't mean the findings are not accurate or true. The TOE uses multiple disciplines to build a base of evidence then attempted largely successfully to show how biological life forms through natural processes there are of course some mysteries we are working on as a species of reason through experts to find these secrets.

No other explanation or attempt has worked and a designer did it isn't a scientific theory its at best an hypothesis that needs to be vetted by scientists to go any further than that. And far more bad things were the result of religion people as humans have a dark hole in us and it expresses itself as we are an aggressive species at times ideologies ranged to do that from various religious ones to non-theist ones. But I would argue in the cases of the non-theist regimes the regime was the religion with a dogma and rituals and yes indoctrination not something special just the same means as the Christians persecuted heretics, witches, did slavery, crushed the native peoples of the America's was the same sick animal as Mao and Stalin. If one looks at how the modeling of religious and non-religious atrocities come from the same power structure replacing God with The State and Stalin.

 

LOL, so after ridiculing people you disagree with, and assigning invented derogatory motivations to them, you will look down your nose for a brief moment at those deplorable dirty unwashed people and will allow them to say something in your presence, and you promise them you will entertain their "backward theories" without bias.

I don't have to read any further to see this OP was not created by an open minded person who wishes to educate either himself or others.

 

The study of Evolution (with a capital "E") or ToE is indeed what happened after "life began". ToE does not address how "life began".

This is why I stated my opinion/concept as "a continual evolution". Toe is over a hundred fifty years in the making. It wasn't until 50 years after Darwin that we first became aware of things like viruses. It wasn't until 100 years after Darwin that we first became aware of things like protein chains. All that muddied the waters as to the definition of life. Today, there is no definition of life that is agreed on by science.

I think the color spectrum is a good basic analogy.

 

ChemEngineer restarted a thread originally posted by USFAN titled fallacies of evolution. USFAN and ChemEngineer made the claim that ten "fallacies" are used in the teaching of evolution. That is a bogus claim. I asked both USFAN and ChemEngineer to show just one scholastic textbook that uses any of these ten fallacies in the teaching of ToE. They didn't because they couldn't. Pressuring them to defend their OPs led USFAN to accuse me of nitpicking and ChemEngineer to putting me on his dreaded ignore list.

If you want to consider asking people to defend what they post in an OP as expressing hatred and anger, and looking for blood, then you have a strange concept of what constitutes a discussion.

 

It's not like I haven't seen this creationist nonsense more honestly presented to justify a demarcation between 'observational science' and 'historical science'. You either accept the scientific method or you don't and, if you reject the evidential basis of ToE, you reject science.

 

Any ridicule was due to their refusal to provide proper explainations, not for disagreement.

 

The theory of evolution does not need to be true for me to disagree with an enemy ideology. Even if it was based on a creator's ideology. Nor is it needed for any type of justification. Opposing views are the enemy regardless. It is only that observable evidence appears to be the most logical way to find whether something is true or not.

 

First you ridicule them, then make an empty claim you will discuss the subject with them. You discredited yourself from the very start.

 

I agree....
there really isn't any debate.

The pro theory of evolution crowd believe in psuedo science, misrepresentations, speculation and strict materialism. No amount of "debate" will change their minds since the opinions are not based on factual assessment but by religious motivations. Their religion being atheism.

Facts bounce of their heads with wild abandon. this is the same phenomenon that can be seen in all denialists, be they globe earth deniers, holocaust deniers, climate change deniers not to mention virutally every other kind of bigot.

The problem I have with some evolutionary theory is that this science demands pure materialism, and I do not buy into the philosophical materialism upon which the theory and mechanisms of evolution is based. I think there is more to it than a strict materialistic theory can ever contain. It isn't sufficient to explain all of it, primarily macro evolution. That lab evidence supporting major contentions voiced in macro evolution are lacking doesn't help out these theories. Until this field of science can replicate what they claim happened, it is nothing but a clever mixture of science and superstition. A requirement to justify atheism. A great effort to prove god, or some intelligence was not needed to create the self replicating molecule that by shits, giggles, and a roll of the dice eventually evolved into a human being who could then think up a way where life exists out of mere chance, evolve, in a universe dumber than a bag of hammers. Stupid matter by chance became intelligent and aware. Such a leap to take in order to be an atheist.

 

Isn't Atheism the opposite of religions?
I will admit that if evolution did occur, it may have the possibility of being put into action by an intelligent source. I suppose I don't see evolution or an intelligent designer as mutually exclusive.

 

It isn't an empty claim. I'm curious to see what facts can be provided from both sides of the argument. However if you are referring to my comment regarding "Christian Fundamentalists", I want to make it clear that the possible truth to the theory of evolution, or the possible truth of religiously-based human origin explainations, have no relevance as to how I personally feel about human beings. Or my feelings about an ideology even if it came from a very real, yet non-materialist source.

 

There aren't "two sides".
Your OP Misguided.
If there was Evidence for any god/dog, you'd know it by now, and some poster would be internationally famous.
god/GodS are pure Faith - AND - many have contradictory creation Myths.
Faith being belief withOut evidence.

However, there is Overwhelming Evidence for Evolution and other Fact-based tenets.
Gameover.
(for the 10,000th time)

 

I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I am open to an outside source of information. Some physicists say the mechanics at the quantum level requires information. If true, what is the source of that information? One has to say, it just is. Given this information plus energy, you get the material world. For my mind, strict materialism in biology is not sufficient, and it requires faith, that what is known, strict materialism, and what is unknown will also be materialistic in nature. We are written promissory notes. Materialistic promissory notes. But if information is indeed essential at the quantum level, why not in the macro evolution, where a self replicating molecule, clumped with other self replicating molecules to eventually evolve into a complex single cell self replicating organism. This in turn in adaptation led to all kinds of species, culminating in a self aware, thinking, mammal, us. This accepted fact has never been demonstrated, replicated under controlled conditions. And my science, whether it is credible or not requires taking a factual understanding, and then using that to replicate the evolution, where a life form evolves into something totally different. What are the genetic mechanisms for this? If we absolutely knew them, we damn well could replicate it, and then evolutionary biology becomes a hard science, like physics. But apparently we do not know the mechanism, enough to replicate what happened with no information involved. And so, I am wide open to biological information, coherent information. I doubt if the origin of life and macro evolution happened without this information. I think evolutionary biology will not be a hard science until it undergoes a revolution as physics did in order to made sense out of things going on at the quantum level of reality. I have a hunch, an intuition, a gut feeling without information, evolution on the macro level would have never happened.

Tom Campbell has My Big Toe. The T of E. Theory of Everything. That our reality is a Virtual Reality, created by something faintly analogous to a super computer, outside of the physical universe, which it creates, out of 0s and 1s. The source of information when combined with energy, manifests our reality. If this idea is true, then evolutionary biology is nothing more than a materialistic lens with which to look at reality. It is useful, when what is understood, like micro evolution, can be used to manipulate life forms for the benefit of humanity. So, in that respect it has tremendous value. But to use it to determine the ultimate reality, well, it has not been able to do that so far. Extraordinary claims are made on the macro side, but extraordinary evidence is lacking. And I would have no problem with the strict materialism of this science if only they could replicate what they are so certain happened.

So evolutionary biology, the macro area is in large part nothing more than ideas, and well thought out ideas. But when physicists got to a certain level is understanding of the atom, they using that understanding saw that the invisible atom could be split. And relying upon scientific knowledge by god they split it, releasing tremendous energy which they through sufficient understanding knew would happen. And so, when evolutionary biology can prove their ideas about macro evolution is fact by doing what the hard science of physics did, proving their understanding was valid, then you will convince the skeptics like me. And evolutionary biology will become a hard science instead of a belief system that is forced to write promissory notes given the weakness of current theory. What other real science is so lacking in the demonstration of understanding? And yet we have yahoos here who act like this field is as credible and strong as physics. But when part of your belief in atheism is based upon a dumb matter universe manifesting intelligence and tremendous complexity in the mechanics of life, of course you will give certainty to this field of science, for your emotional nature demands it. Your philosophical belief demands it. No different from the believer in a Divine Intelligence. So, demonstrate macro evolution, and get yourself out of the class with the religious. For until this happens, you just believe in a set of ideas, with hardly a smidge of hard evidence that is insufficient except for the faithful.

But like other things, AGW doomsday for instance, the certainly exclaimed by the faithful must never be questioned. Skeptics are attacked by mobs of the faithful and torn apart like wild dogs. For you are messing with their philosophical beliefs about the nature of reality. It reminds us skeptics of the Church going after heretics to orthodoxy, and no toleration of anything not materialistic.

 

And where is the hard evidence that macro evolution is purely a materialistic process? All that I see is the exclamation that there isn't an outside source of information to order the mechanics of macro evolution, which therefore has to mean macro evolution is purely materialistic and happens naturally. So an outside source of information does not exist because it is so far immeasurable, and by eliminating what you have no access to, what is left is the T of E.

When this field of science has sufficient understanding to replicate, by using intelligence, what happened with no intelligence involved at all, then saying it is fact based will be the fact of the matter. Until then, you guys have just as much faith in operation as the believer in a creative intelligence being involved. And it takes more faith to believe in some of these ideas contained in this soft science than it does to believe in a source of information outside of matter. Or perhaps in matter itself. I think intelligent information is inferred by the movement of less complexity into greater complexity. Since you cannot demonstrate by replication of this movement you got nothing except faith in ideas.

So you claim you got the money, but cannot show it. Some of us just want to see the money, before we buy into the idea of dumb matter creating intelligence. If information is essential at the quantum level, there is no reason why some other kind of information is essential at the genetic and biological level of reality. To bring order out of disorder, coherence out of incoherence. Life out of non life. Consciousness out of no consciousness.

 

True for you according to your logic and to your evidence. But it is not true for your enemy ideology.

Your ideology is to impose your truth on others.

It is Marxist-Leninist, Nazi ideology, it is Anti American, and, of course, science has nothing to do to it.

 

You quoted me out of the context, because if to read your post only the reader will not know what ChemEng is pointing to.

I believe this tread is not about 10 fallacies or commandments.

I don't have time to exercise logic with adepts of evolution because it will always end in them trolling and expressing hatred and anger.

I just pointed to the fact that either TOE does not belong to science or physics, chemistry, genetics and similar do not belong to science.

 

Both of your posts above show complete ignorance of the topic and/or stupendous perversions of logic in service of your Religio-politcal views.

1. Evidence for Evolution is 'hard' (what you goofily Mislabel as 'materialistic', as if it's 'greedy').
Since it was proposed 150 years ago it has been shown to be Consist with, or Confirmed by every New Science in that explosively enlightening Period.
Millions of New Fossil finds, All Consistent in strata (Geology), Complexity/Age (Isotopic dating), Genetics/DNA, etc, etc.
ALL evidence points to it. NO Evidence points to god or you implicated 'Intelligence'.

Evolution is not "intelligent," it's hit and miss mutation/adaptation/extinction for billions of years that fits the current conditions of the planet.
It looks 'perfect' because the things that weren't well suited reproduced less, or went extinct. (and will change again)

2. We don't have to "Replicate" Astronomy for it to be valid [either] and it's far less hands on that Evolution's Evidence.
Asking for Billions of years of hit-and-miss to be replicated is ridiculous
Why not ask for a Videotape?

In fact, the Circumstantial case for Evolution is far better than the much smaller circumstantial cases that send people to their deaths in Courts, "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Many/Most convictions are built on Circumstantial evidence, not Less reliable eyewitness testimony.

3. Your posts typical Right wing silliness, throwing in "AGW doomsday" for good, and Irrelevant measure.

4. GodS, OTOH, have NO evidence.
In fact, we know for sure at least 75% of Religionists/'gods' are wrong even if one stepped in it, as they have contradictory tenets/creation Myths, etc.

5. Unlike Evolution, which would be independently discernible by someone on a desert Island, Religion needs Indoctrination with Stupid Myths.
What religion you are is 95% a Geo-CULTural accident of Birth, while Evolution's facts can be discerned by observation and measurement everywhere.

6. What happens when "Micro-evolution" continues? Do creatures just stop? NO. It's called 'Macro Evolution."
In fact, Micro/Macro are understood but really Flat-Earther terms for a process that doesn't stop, and for which they already had to give in/fold on the more modest of the two.
`

 

Obviously it is you who is babbling.

Jump.

If you mean Astrology then it is true. I am not sure which one is more scientific –Astrology or TOE.

I pointed that TOE makes Logical conclusions based on empirical (the one we can observe, measure with our instruments, experiment with) evidence.

Of course, it uses many other sciences, such as archaeology, Biology/DNA as an evidence.

I pointed that makes it different from physics, chemistry, genetics and similar which have absolutely no use for empirical evidence.

NAS/National Academy of Sciences? A couple of scumbags who can take no questions?

LOL.


Would be interesting if you could challenge the fact I pointed to in any way or measure.


Obviously it is you who started from babbling and finished by babbling.

 

I wouldn't say imposing my truth so much as imposing my opinions. Or at the very least, eliminating competition. Though I am neither a Marxist or National Socialist, I will at least admit this: regarding American Ideology, I do not support it in full. I am not sure what other method the enemy uses for determining what is real though. Possibly something metaphysical. And you are correct about science having nothing to do with my personal views. They are opinions. Both evolution and creationism are irrelevant. I am merely open to seeing evidence for alternate theories that can explain human origin, but I have never stated that whatever truth yielded had anything to do with my personal likes/dislikes regarding humanity or the world. It would only change my understanding of what truth is, not my opinion of that truth.

 

I have an alternative theory okay: A sky being pulled out his magic wand and waved it around making all life using his juju. Now how can we prove this we are here and we see other life so it must be true and this bronze age book says its true so we don't need any evidence since questioning it is clearly crazy talk.

There that seems to be the dominant other theory all the major religions agree on in some form.

 

The most Insane post I've ever seen.

He Admits that ToE makes "Logical Conclusions", using "Evidence" we can "observe", "Measure," and Experiment on.
But in the next sentence he says, Logic, Evidence and Measurements are "Faith," "personal philosophy"/"ideology".
WTF is that?
Butterfly Nets.
`

 

Claiming that micro can never become macro is nothing more than rejecting the entire theory of evolution by arbitrarily asserting: “It ain’t so!”

Actually, it’s worse than that, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.
Blathering about macroevolution causing problems for evolutionary theory is an argument from ignorance.

 

A good scientific theory should be able to explain observations so I have a little challenge for the Creationists. Stoats (a member of the weasel family), have peculiar mating practice. The female stoat becomes sexually mature a few weeks after birth at which time a the male will raid the nest and mate with them while they are still blind, deaf and hairless. This is basically rape. So please explain why a creator, who is concerned enough with his creations' morality that he is willing to torture them forever if they disobey, would create a creature that rapes? Evolution has an explanation.

 

I was intrigued by your thread regarding vestigial bones and organs. I plan to post again there soon.