Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8846 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2018 6:03 AM
244 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 242 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 835,570 Year: 10,393/29,783 Month: 1,057/1,583 Week: 75/451 Day: 7/68 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1 of 187 (836027)
07-08-2018 9:47 AM


Although the public acceptance of the evolution theory and the flat Earth theory is quite different, both of these theories are in stark contradiction with empirical facts, which makes them equally mythical. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for the understanding of their mythical nature. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the flat Earth theory.

In its most essential form, the evolution theory is an idea according to which the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc. In other words, this idea holds that starting from the first self-replicating organism, which lacked structures like eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain, RNA splicing machine, etc., these structures came into existence just because mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift were happening. Since these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation, we can use the scientific method to test whether they really can do what the evolutionary idea holds they can do, and in that way determine whether the evolution theory is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific myth equivalent to the flat Earth theory. For that purpose, first we are going to take a look at the longest empirical observation of evolutionary processes in action, which is the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. After that we will determine mathematically whether the evolutionary processes are capable of producing a primitive biological function.

The rest you can read here: https://darwinmyth.wordpress.com/


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 07-08-2018 10:22 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-08-2018 6:41 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-09-2018 3:17 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 07-11-2018 9:46 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 12:49 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 12:48 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 181 by herebedragons, posted 07-22-2018 5:34 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1873
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 187 (836028)
07-08-2018 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
07-08-2018 9:47 AM


Upon Further Review
Upon examing your other topics and upon further review, I conclude that you have an ability to express yourself quite well in your own words.

Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution? You basically sum up your argument in message 289 of that thread. You indicated at that point that you were through with your case. What will be any different should we promote this topic?

Give me a good opening statement and I will consider it.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 9:47 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 10:41 AM AdminPhat has responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 187 (836029)
07-08-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
07-08-2018 10:22 AM


Re: Not promotable for a variety of reasons
The truth is not dependent on what I personally believe, or on whether I copy/pasted and/or restated it. The truth is that the evolution theory is a myth, which is proved with the linked article. As an administrator, it is up to you to decide whether you want to promote or suppress this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 07-08-2018 10:22 AM AdminPhat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminPhat, posted 07-08-2018 10:45 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 10:58 AM forexhr has responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1873
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 4 of 187 (836030)
07-08-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by forexhr
07-08-2018 10:41 AM


I encourage you to openly consider your opponent's arguments and actually discuss them rather than simply swatting them down by repeating your claims and theories.

Only by respecting their intelligence and methodology can you get them to at least consider yours. You have ran into walls before at other forums.

Do you want to broaden your approach and open up here at EvC and actually see your opponents as discussion participants rather than simply adversaries?

As for the truth it is debateable and ultimately yes, it does involve our personal beliefs.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 10:41 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1873
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 5 of 187 (836032)
07-08-2018 10:52 AM


Promoted Cautiously
Thread copied here from the The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

This topic will be moderated. Any personal attacks will receive appropriate warning and or responses. Play nice, folks.

Edited by AdminPhat, : better explanation


    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10887
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 6 of 187 (836033)
07-08-2018 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by forexhr
07-08-2018 10:41 AM


Lets start this out
quote:
The truth is that the evolution theory is a myth, which is proved with the linked article.

I am more interested in why you personally see the evolutionary theory as a myth. What is your background? Tell me a bit about your story as you seek to discuss this topic.

Add: Linked articles prove nothing. Proofs are hashed out through reasoned argumentation.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 10:41 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 11:25 AM Phat has responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 7 of 187 (836035)
07-08-2018 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
07-08-2018 10:58 AM


Re: Lets start this out
I stated in the article why I personally see the evolutionary theory as a myth - it ignores the fact of insufficient variations, just as the Flat Earth theory ignores the fact of spherical shape of the Earth. It's pretty simple.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 10:58 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-08-2018 12:10 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 12:51 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 1:20 PM forexhr has responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 351
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 8 of 187 (836039)
07-08-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by forexhr
07-08-2018 11:25 AM


Re: Lets start this out
...in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge...

What in the name of god makes you think that the public's level of understanding has anything to do with the truth or falsity of a theory?

...it ignores the fact of insufficient variations...

How do you know that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 11:25 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by forexhr, posted 07-09-2018 3:26 AM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10887
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 9 of 187 (836042)
07-08-2018 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by forexhr
07-08-2018 11:25 AM


Re: Lets start this out
so you wrote the article then? OK in it is stated:
...in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious...
So does this mean that though the general public may not understand it, learned men and women should be able to understand it quite well?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 11:25 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10887
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 10 of 187 (836044)
07-08-2018 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by forexhr
07-08-2018 11:25 AM


Re: Lets start this out
It's pretty simple.
If it is so simple, why is the idea not more widespread among the researchers? What keeps them from seeing the obvious?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 11:25 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-08-2018 6:18 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 14 by forexhr, posted 07-09-2018 3:28 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 351
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 11 of 187 (836045)
07-08-2018 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
07-08-2018 1:20 PM


Re: Lets start this out
What keeps them from seeing the obvious?

Well, as a shipwright on a boating forum told me when I called him out on some bullshit he was peddling about fluoride, they have been "blinded by their education". Direct quote, BTW.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 1:20 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 495
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 12 of 187 (836046)
07-08-2018 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
07-08-2018 9:47 AM


Blogging From the Beyond
I want to respond to you OP but am unable to do so since I am dead. In fact, all of us are dead. Or at least we would be if your analysis had any validity since the process that you determine to be impossible is exactly the process that our adaptive immune cells use to produce antibodies, those pesky little molecular combinations that protect us from invasive pathogens (and many causes of death). At least it’s nice to know that I didn’t die from cancer since your math proves that the molecular modifications required to mutate cells to oncogenic forms is impossible. Thank you for that.

Actually, if you are really interested in how to properly address the mathematics you are attempting you can read about the brilliant work of Andreas Wagner and his team at the University of Zurich, which is described in his very readable book: “Arrival of the Fittest: How Nature Innovates”.

————————————————————
There is an old saying: Seeing is believing.
This old saying is false.
People don’t believe what they are seeing.
People believe what they are told they are seeing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 9:47 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by forexhr, posted 07-09-2018 3:37 AM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 13 of 187 (836053)
07-09-2018 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Capt Stormfield
07-08-2018 12:10 PM


Re: Lets start this out
What in the name of god makes you think that the public's level of understanding has anything to do with the truth or falsity of a theory?

I neither think nor have I said anything of the sort. Instead, I suggested that public's level of understanding has everything to do with believing in something. Since the public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary processes, it believes that evolution theory is true.

How do you know that?

It is explained extensively in the article.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-08-2018 12:10 PM Capt Stormfield has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 14 of 187 (836054)
07-09-2018 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Phat
07-08-2018 1:20 PM


Re: Lets start this out
If it is so simple, why is the idea not more widespread among the researchers? What keeps them from seeing the obvious?

"All truths are simple to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." ~Galileo

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Phat, posted 07-08-2018 1:20 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 15 of 187 (836055)
07-09-2018 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals
07-08-2018 6:41 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
... Or at least we would be if your analysis had any validity since the process that you determine to be impossible is exactly the process that our adaptive immune cells use to produce antibodies, those pesky little molecular combinations that protect us from invasive pathogens...

I never said that the process of molecular recombination is impossible. It is not only possible but factual, just like molecular recombinations in the process of raining or erosion are possible and factual. What I have said (and proved) is that it is impossible for this process to result in "previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc." Hence, you committed a logical fallacy, since from the premise: "molecular recombinations are possible or factual", it does not follow "molecular recombinations can result in previously non-existent biological functions". Your argument is like saing: "it is factual that humans can jump - therefore, humans can jump from Earth to the moon."

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-08-2018 6:41 PM AnswersInGenitals has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2018 3:57 AM forexhr has responded

    
1
23456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018