Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 46 of 305 (203922)
04-30-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by TheNewGuy03
04-30-2005 1:25 AM


Re: LOL.
TheNewGuy03
I said that if nothing had purpose and placement, THEN I want to die.
I find it a real shame that people can find life so disheartening and not charged with a beautiful contrast of sadness and laughter.
It is not possible to really enjoy life IMHO unless we accept that the universe neither cares nor does not care about us.In that condition life becomes precious and we gain a perspective of the world that equalizes everyone.
I could not personally consider infinite life in any way but with horror.Endless existence is far more miserable than a short life well lived.

And since you know you cannot see yourself,
so well as by reflection, I, your glass,
will modestly discover to yourself,
that of yourself which you yet know not of

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 1:25 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 11:57 PM sidelined has replied

AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 305 (203936)
04-30-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by TheNewGuy03
04-30-2005 1:25 AM


Re: LOL.
Welcome to EvC, TheNewGuy03.
Just thought I'd let you know that we have some forum rules which, among other things, strongly encourage people to avoid personal attacks, name-calling, and the like, and that you agreed to abide by when you registered.
So, when you said:
quote:
Anyway, I don't really want to die. Idiot.
you were in violation of rule #3:
3) Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."
You could have said "Your comment was idiotic." and it would have been within the rules. So, refrain from the ad hominems and you will not attract moderator attention.
We look forward to your participation in the debate!
AdminSchraf
This message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 04-30-2005 10:53 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 1:25 AM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 305 (204024)
04-30-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
04-30-2005 2:28 AM


Re: LOL.
Evidence of what? I get all kinds of fustian replies from people.
They barely know what THEY'RE talking about.
And what conclusion do you say I'm jumping to? You're being so nitpicky that you overlook what I said (which actually agrees with what you're saying) in favor of a condescending and malevolent perspective on my statements. I do believe in randomness, darn it.
I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.
Go ahead, skewer that statement with whatever you have. That's not making your point any stronger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 04-30-2005 2:28 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:00 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 305 (204025)
04-30-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by sidelined
04-30-2005 9:28 AM


Re: LOL.
Sidelined,
Is it wrong for me to think that way? How would you feel if you realized that you're living just to die? Why are you there in the first place?
You may not realize this, but I'm not the only one who makes that statement. Go ahead and make a sarcastic comment.
I believe everything is precious; in fact, I appreciate other things more than myself. I believe that appreciation and love are the progenitors of happiness. Of course, something that trivial can not be found easily in this world.
You are correct in saying that the universe does/does not care. The reason for that is that there is no reason within the universe as a whole. Not only does it not reason; it lacks the ability to do so.
Infinite life would truly be a tragedy, like an untimely death.
I'm saying this to say that life does have purpose, which many do not believe. I was once a hardcore evolutionist myself. I'm not believing something for the sake of believing it; I believe that which is most logical and consistent, and the theory of evolution does neither.
Okay, maybe here and there.
But that is the reasoning behind my thoughts. Hate it if you want to. But few recognize truth when there are many lies to believe.
This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 04-30-2005 11:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by sidelined, posted 04-30-2005 9:28 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by edge, posted 05-01-2005 12:09 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied
 Message 61 by sidelined, posted 05-01-2005 3:46 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 305 (204026)
05-01-2005 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by TheNewGuy03
04-30-2005 11:43 PM


Re: LOL.
Evidence of what?
That non-deterministic processes, not divine guidance, have shaped the outcome of events.
I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.
What you will or won't believe isn't really the issue. What I still don't understand is why you think that its better to go with the conclusion that you like rather than the conclusion that best fits the evidence. And the evidence is, the world is the result of processes that have acted without any design or purpose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 11:43 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 12:24 AM crashfrog has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 305 (204028)
05-01-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by TheNewGuy03
04-30-2005 11:57 PM


Re: LOL.
quote:
Is it wrong for me to think that way? How would you feel if you realized that you're living just to die? Why are you there in the first place?
If you are incapable of finding your own reason to live, then perhaps you are dead.
quote:
I believe everything is precious; in fact, I appreciate other things more than myself. I believe that appreciation and love are the progenitors of happiness. Of course, something that trivial can not be found easily in this world.
Then you agree with a lot of evolutionists.
quote:
Infinite life would truly be a tragedy, like an untimely death.
If that is what you make of it, then indeed, you are correct. I know death well, NG. One one level it is a tragedy, but on another, I see now the purpose of life because of it.
quote:
I'm saying this to say that life does have purpose, which many do not believe.
I think most evolutionists would agree with you on this. My life has a purpose. It didn't have to be given to me or forced upon me. I discovered it.
quote:
I was once a hardcore evolutionist myself. I'm not believing something for the sake of believing it; I believe that which is most logical and consistent, and the theory of evolution does neither.
If that is your opinion, fine. My opinion is that your are wrong. I do not believe anything just for the sake of believing. Once again you (all) seem to have a very keen understanding of the evolutionist mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by TheNewGuy03, posted 04-30-2005 11:57 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 12:36 AM edge has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 305 (204032)
05-01-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by crashfrog
05-01-2005 12:00 AM


Re: LOL.
Again, I ask, what evidence of "non-deterministic processes"? Nothing occurs without a means to an end. What occurs during natural selection and Darwin's other observations? They do things because something else must happen, or else, that species will die out.
Besides, there is no evidence that divine evidence did NOT shape the outcome of events. To me, the presence of design and intricacy indicates more of an externally operating intelligence than the evolutionary model does. Given, there are a myriad of facts in evolutionary theory, but that does not negate what is traditionally called "divine intervention."
Before you argue in favor of something, be sure you know its foundation. What does "evolution" mean? Why do YOU believe evolution? A building without a solid foundation will not stand; the same applies to an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:00 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:39 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 305 (204033)
05-01-2005 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by edge
05-01-2005 12:09 AM


Re: LOL.
Dear edge,
I know my reason to live. And I also know this: I have not come to this earth to die.
How do I agree with evolutionists by saying that genuine love is hard to find? You have no backup for your statement, considering you are pitting a concept with something that is empirical.
Also, I realize that my ideas will always coincide with many people's beliefs, regardless of their logical alignment. What you don't realize is that creation science actually agrees with most of evolutionary theory, sans macroevolution.
Death has meaning as well. All things, both fortunate and unfortunate, have a place. That is the meaning of existence.
I've spoken to many people (evolutionists and creationists alike) who believe that life has no meaning. It is not limited to evolutionists; it applies to people in all cultures.
Don't base your statements on opinions. One must pick apart his/her own arguments in order to better understand others'. With that said, I will leave you to ponder that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by edge, posted 05-01-2005 12:09 AM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 8:50 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 305 (204034)
05-01-2005 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 12:24 AM


They do things because something else must happen, or else, that species will die out.
Which is just like saying that the coin must land heads, or else it will land tails.
Some species survive. Some do not. Actually most do not. That's pretty much it.
Besides, there is no evidence that divine evidence did NOT shape the outcome of events.
No, the evidence is that we can explain the outcome of all the events by recourse to nothing more than natural law. Unless what your saying is that the only thing the divine presence is willing or able to do is that which was going to happen anyway according to the laws of physics?
How impressive is that? Not very.
What does "evolution" mean?
A change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
Why do YOU believe evolution?
I don't believe it. I don't have to. It's the model that explains the most evidence.
A building without a solid foundation will not stand; the same applies to an argument.
The only foundation is evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 12:24 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 1:13 AM crashfrog has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 305 (204035)
05-01-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
05-01-2005 12:39 AM


Yep.
That is true, simply because in this case there are only two options: survival or death. In other cases, it is not as simple.
We have lots of evidence, but evidence is not enough, and evidence should not negate other evidence; one of them has to be wrong. You can't prove a concept with laws of physics. It is, well, physically and logically impossible.
Well, of course you believe evolution. And it's not because you assert it so vehemently. It's because people have to believe something and have opinions, and that is man's downfall.
A change in allele frequencies does not denote macroevolution. It is a fact that alleles do change over time, due to environmental adaptation. But one species does not become another species. Stick to the basics.
And you are right: something without evidence is not solid. An assertion is not enough to become fact, even though we observe that in human thought patterns everyday. What is most important, however, is that the evidence has to support the assertion, and vice versa. One can not exist without the other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 12:39 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 1:31 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Jianyi Zhang
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 305 (204036)
05-01-2005 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Wounded King
04-29-2005 11:46 AM


Originally posted by Wounded King:
All organisms are subject to RM/NS.
Do you all organisms are subject to RM/NS for adaption or speciation?
If speciation, how do you know? If this is the case, the claim has been falsified million times. For example, polyploid, HIV, etc.
If you could show that there can be speciation events in organisms that are completely static at all genetic levels then that would certainly falsify a neccessary role for RM&NS.
What is the role, in speciation or adaptation?
I can't understand this. Your fraternal twins would also only be identifiable as a seperate species after they are born, and indeed after they have both reached reproductive age.
NS has different impacts. All supertwins are identical among same sex initially, if natural condition is poor for their survival, they would die.
NS does not work on them because of their dissimilar properties, which they do not have. Different characteristics would develop after they proliferate over time.
In terms of biodiversity your theory is even more pointless. Even quite small scale genetic variation quite clearly leads to biodiversity in bacteria, any allelic variation is arguably biodiversity.
Biodiversity is poorly defined word, I use it to mean such big changes, such as new type of bacteria, or new type of virus.
Indeed, a few instances showing that some populations go through bottlenecks at some stage is nothing even remotely resembling evidence that all sexually reproducing populations have bottlenecks in their initial stages.
Evidence is outcome of hypothesis-driven research, nobody has done anything based on the hypothesis, do you expect many evidences?
Which somehow suggests that the whole species can be traced back to 1 pair of fraternal twinned siblings?
I do not think it doable technically at this time. Even ones can not do that for existed specie, it may be doable for coming ones. New speciation comes out everyday.

Jianyi Zhang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Wounded King, posted 04-29-2005 11:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 57 of 305 (204038)
05-01-2005 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 1:13 AM


Re: Yep.
In other cases, it is not as simple.
Yes, exactly. In cases where there's the possibility of other outcomes, those outcomes happen to.
It's really hard to see what your point is, here. Things happen. Apparently, they happen in exactly the way they would according to the laws of physics. If God is somehow making certain things happen, the only things he's making happen are the things that would have happened, anyway. You'll pardon me if I'm not impressed.
We have lots of evidence, but evidence is not enough
It is if you aren't plaged by a compulsive need to eliminate all uncertainty. I'm comfortable with a certain degree of tentativity in my conclusions, and therefore, evidence is enough. What's your problem?
And it's not because you assert it so vehemently.
I'm pretty sure that I just said that I didn't believe evolution, that I simply accepted it provisionally because currently its the best model that explains the evidence.
What about that is a "vehement assertion" to you? I don't see how I could be any less vehement about it.
A change in allele frequencies does not denote macroevolution.
Yeah, it actually pretty much does. Here, I can easily demonstrate it. Here are two zygotes:
One of these will develop into a human, and the other will develop into a starfish. I'll leave it to you to try to tell which is which. Every multicellular organism starts out in this state, but every species winds up somewhere completely different.
How is this possible? The only thing that determines whether or not these single cell will develop into starfish or into humans is the content of its genetics; in other words, the alleles that it has.
Hence, any process that changes alleles, changes genetics, is going to change species. Is going to result in new species from old ones. Microevolution, macroevolution - all the same exact thing. Changing allele frequencies over time.
But one species does not become another species.
Sure they do. Where else would all the new species come from? They're not being beamed down to earth by aliens or God, I can tell you that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 1:13 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 1:43 AM crashfrog has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 305 (204039)
05-01-2005 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
05-01-2005 1:31 AM


Re: Yep.
I never threw God in this. Don't make any assumptions.
I do have a need to eliminate uncertainty, like anyone. That's one of the reasons we are here: to learn and to enhance knowledge.
A vehement assertion is simply a strong statement. It has no traces of extremism. If that weren't the case, we would all be fanatics.
Microevolution and macroevolution are not the same thing. Microevolution is variations within a species. Macroevolution is on a larger scale. Frankly, experiments throughout history have actually proved that wrong.
It is true that all things start the same, but their genetic makeup does not permit them to become anything other than what their genetic makeup permits them to be. The obvious difference between the two zygotes is that their genetic makeups are different, which results in two different organisms. Nothing will change that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 1:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 1:57 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 305 (204041)
05-01-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by TheNewGuy03
05-01-2005 1:43 AM


I do have a need to eliminate uncertainty, like anyone.
No, not like anyone. Not everybody's like you, NewGuy. We're not all so pathologically terrified of the idea of tentativity. Some of us have no problem with our knowledge representing simply the best conclusions we're able to come to with what we know right now.
A vehement assertion is simply a strong statement.
Yes, thank you, Miriam-Webster. I don't see in what way my statement was "strong." In fact, I'd say that "evolution is simply the best model we have right now that explains all the evidence" is about the weakest statement you could make that still supports evolution.
Microevolution is variations within a species. Macroevolution is on a larger scale.
10 is bigger than 1. That doesn't mean they're not both numbers.
It's farther to walk to the movie theatre than to the grocery store. That doesn't mean that going to a movie is "macro-walking" and popping down for some tomato juice and a bag of flour is "micro-walking." Micro and macroevolution are the same thing over different amounts of time.
Frankly, experiments throughout history have actually proved that wrong.
Quite the opposite. Experiments have demonstrated the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model in all respects, including common ancestry.
It is true that all things start the same, but their genetic makeup does not permit them to become anything other than what their genetic makeup permits them to be.
Indeed. The genetic makeup of all organisms permits them to become, eventually, any other organism with a genetic makeup; that is, all known organisms. There are no fundamental barriers or separations between the genetic makeups of any organisms, a powerful indication of common ancestry.
The obvious difference between the two zygotes is that their genetic makeups are different, which results in two different organisms. Nothing will change that.
To the contrary, the evolutionary processes of random mutation and natural selection have been repeatedly demostrated to change genetic makeups. That's how I defined evolution, remember? As the process that results in changes in allele frequencies over time - changes in genetic makeups.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 1:43 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by TheNewGuy03, posted 05-01-2005 2:26 AM crashfrog has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 305 (204043)
05-01-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by crashfrog
05-01-2005 1:57 AM


Yeah.
So...
It's sad to see that people settle for mediocrity, especially when it comes to believing what others say. By the way, I'm not paranoid.
The vehement assertion I was referring to was in your other post, not the most recent one.
You seem to have a penchant for giving people bad examples. I never said things don't grow or change. I said that one species does not turn into another. That is the nature of genetics.
A mutation is not another species. It is a modification of an already-established species. And most mutations are bad. What is the likelihood of a successful mistake, dear Frog?
"Quite the opposite. Experiments have demonstrated the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model in all respects, including common ancestry."
That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists. Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.
You are doing what I have mentioned earlier: applying a valid assertion to fallacious claim.
You are correct: random mutation does occur, and natural selection does occur. So does the survival of the fittest, and various other theories of Darwinian origin. Just not macroevolution.
I hope you realize that all you have said proves evolution on a small scale.
Oh yeah, it's "Merriam," not "Miriam." Just thought I'd let you know.
Thanks for the afterthoughts. Anything more? I'm always listening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 05-01-2005 1:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2005 8:39 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied
 Message 64 by nator, posted 05-01-2005 9:13 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 05-03-2005 9:45 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024