Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The consequences of "Evolution is false"
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 46 of 210 (359304)
10-27-2006 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by joshua221
10-26-2006 10:50 PM


What other choices are there?
prophex writes:
You are promoting the idea that a proper conclusion to the statement:Evolution is false, and is not supported is that Scientists are liars, and imcompetent.
Actually, the claim by Schraf is that scientists are either liars OR incompetent.
And her point is indeed, valid. Look, if evolutionary theory were "new" then maybe an argument could be put forth that perhaps before accepting that the ToE more evidence needs to be presented because the theory could be false and/or perhaps the small amount scientific research used to formulate the theory is fundamentally flawed in some way...but that is not the case.
Over 150 years have passed since Darwin presented his paper(s), and in that time, copious experiments have been conducted in not only the biological sciences, but also in geology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy (as well as the many relevant subcategories for each), just to name a few...and ALL of them have supported the theory (or perhaps it would be better to say that none of them have falsified the theory).
Go to the Library of any mainstream University and limit yourself to just the biological sciences and behold the plethora of scientific research conducted within the realm of evolutionary biology. There will be literally thousands of papers you could choose to read. Thousands!
If these studies are all wrong, and the ToE is false, what else could these scientists be...other than either incompetent or liars?
So, if you are of the opinion that the ToE is indeed false, what other possible conclusion regarding the “integrity” of the scientists could there be, other than the two listed by Schrafinator?
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to remove some (but not all) redundancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by joshua221, posted 10-26-2006 10:50 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:53 PM FliesOnly has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 53 of 210 (359341)
10-27-2006 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by joshua221
10-27-2006 12:53 PM


Re: What other choices are there?
prophex writes:
The conclusions that you draw of scientists who would have squandered such valuable time studying, and writing these thousands of papers cannot be assumed.
After more than 150 years of conducting scientific research related to the ToE, and still having a segment of the population saying that it is all wrong because it contradicts their "beliefs" or disagrees with their "faith", it's really not much of an assumption to conclude that these individuals must hold scientists in very low regard...to the level of incompetence. Or worse yet, being liars.
prophex writes:
An individual, a creationist, could observe the work that has been done, and think that it is a respectable effort in order to prove a theory about origins.
and still reject it out of hand . without really understanding what it means, other than they don't like what they think it says. But this still doesn’t address the fact that even though they may think the effort "respectable", seeing as how they also conclude it’s wrong, then what else am I to conclude (other than these creationists must think that the scientists do not know what they’re doing)? Remember, we’re not talking about arm-chair, Discovery Channel scientists here. We’re talking about people that have devoted their entire lives to the study of the ToE. Years of schooling, years in labs conducting experiments. Apparently all the while learning absolutely nothing.
prophex writes:
This creationist could respect these efforts, and never think that these scholars are incompetent, much less liars.
What else could they think? Honestly prophex, I fail to see any other option. Again, remember that we’re not taking about a "new" idea here. Evolutionary theory has been around for quite some time now. We're talking about countless thousands of experiments here...none of which disprove the theory. None. So either these crazy ol' evolutionary biologists are liars, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about. You know...they are ALL interpreting the data incorrectly...none of them know jack-shit about statistical analysis...most are obviously incapable of proper experiment design...or to put it all into just one word...incompetent.
prophex writes:
The assumption here simply does not work. You both are inventing a hypothetical argument which relies on a subjective, and vague assumption about the qualities of not some, but even all creationists.
Crashfrog has already pointed this out, and I just happen to agree...I have yet to see a creationist with a good working knowledge of the ToE. The same basic errors are made repeatedly at this site alone. And when these errors are pointed out to them, they either ignore what was explained to them, disappear completely from this site, or invoke Goddidit as an explanation.
But that's not the point. The point is this: These same individuals fundamentally disagree with the ToE, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, collected over the past century and a half, to the point that the only plausible conclusion must be that the scientists are in error. Always have been and, importantly, always will be. How is this not the default conclusion... that all evolutionary biologists are either incompetent or better yet, perpetrating a giant hoax on the entire human population?
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to fix a stupid sentence. Honest...I wouldn't lie about something like that...I'm just incompetent and can't type.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 12:53 PM joshua221 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 4:15 PM FliesOnly has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 148 of 210 (359777)
10-30-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by joshua221
10-27-2006 8:24 PM


Re: General Reply mostly for Crashfrog
Hi prophex:
Jeez, I go away for the weekend and come back only to find that I'm waaaaaaay behind on this thread. Perhaps (and most likely) this has already been addressed, but before I read through all that I have missed, I want to respond to this one point, after which I will read as much as I can in an attempt to get back on tract.
prophex in post 72 writes:
I do not think that scientists are liars, or cheats. They are men who study the world, and seek to find some sort of answers through it. They are misguided, and looking in all the wrong places. They hold a purpose similar to that of a ditch-digger, or of a custodian. There is no difference between their minds and the minds of men who illegally work here from another country. They squander thought on stars, on planets. They squander lives on evolution.
Remember, Schraf's original claim was that creationists are either liars OR incompetent. What you have written here basically means that you feel that scientists are the latter of the two. Perhaps you don't think they're liars, but this certainly implies that they are incompetent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by joshua221, posted 10-27-2006 8:24 PM joshua221 has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 149 of 210 (359778)
10-30-2006 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Hyroglyphx
10-29-2006 11:45 AM


Re: "The same evidence"?
nemesis-juggernaut writes:
But, the same can be said of certain evolutionists who 'look' for satisfying reasons to have one piece of evidence conform to their preconceived notions.
You've said this at least twice now, that I can recall. Are you ever going to back this up with evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-29-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 155 of 210 (359838)
10-30-2006 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Rob
10-30-2006 9:52 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Rob writes:
Can you logically believe that it is possible for a F22 Raptor to spontaneously appear?
Last time I checked, F22 Raptors were incapable of reproducing. The ToE does not address how life began. The Theory applies only AFTER life emerged, so I still fail to see how Darwin's ideas have been turned on their heads.
Rob writes:
If not, it is even more improbable that life could appear spontaneously.
Really? You sure about this, Rob. I for one, would love to see you support this claim. First though, I'd ask that you define "life" and then more importantly, "spontaneous".
Rob writes:
It's like the movie 'I Robot'...
Actually, no, it's nothing like the movie "I Robot".
Rob writes:
You know that I believe life was created nearly spontaneously, but by a creator, not by accident.
That's all well and good, but again, it's completely unrelated to the ToE and to the OP as well.
Rob writes:
That's why I said, (but in different terms) that the paradigm that Darwin postulated as a reasonable means for the theory of evolution has been turned on it's head.
Yes, you did say this but you still have not backed it up in anyway. Nor does it concern itself with the underlying questions posed by Schraf in her OP.
Rob writes:
But give them the correct organs and cell structure they need to replicate, that just by accident matches the DNA sequencing. Then add a mysterious spark (or breath), and WALLA... you got a self replicating animal.
Do you know anything about DNA and RNA? "Give them the correct organs"? "Give them the correct cell structure"? What are you trying to explain here? We have cells and organs because of DNA and RNA, not the other way around.
Rob writes:
Life is incredibly brittle and fragile. And even if we can imagine (and we certainly can!) that it could acheive this stunt you suggest. We must first take for granted that an entire universe of ecosystem is in place to make it possible. All by accident?
I think that part of your problem is that you want to ascribe some sort of "goal" to evolution and by extension, life itself...that it couldn't just all be "an accident". Why not Rob? Why does it bother you so much to think that we are here as the result of some sort of “accident"?
Rob writes:
I don't think so, and yes, if scientists can believe that, then I think they are in desperation (even unconsciously) wallowing in ignorance and half-truths.
Oh wait, I see now. You just "don't think so" and believe that scientists are incompetent and/or liars. I see. Care to support this, cuz I'd feel pretty bad about myself if I thought that I were "wallowing in ignorance and half-truths" when you could so enlighten me.
Rob writes:
Self respect... a subtle yet misunderstood power called pride!
Wha?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Rob, posted 10-30-2006 9:52 AM Rob has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 163 of 210 (360057)
10-31-2006 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Rob
10-31-2006 1:09 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Rob writes:
Tremendous discoveries have been made along the way. But none of it confirms evolution.
Bull shit. The ToE is perhaps the most supported scientific theory we have, and is the very foundation of biology as a modern scientific discipline. Honestly, Rob, do know anything at all about evolutionary theory?
Rob writes:
Rather, it confirms natural selection as a real process that takes place after the origin.
Ok...so what's the problem? And you do realize that this statement basically contradicts your previous one . don’t you?
Rob writes:
Our understanding of many things has improved dramatically in the scientific sense, but man is essentially the same selfish savage that we see in ancient history.
Again I fail to see not only your point, but how this in any way affects the ToE. Ok, man is basically unchanged over the last couple thousand years...so what, what's your point? And how would this disprove evolution?
Rob writes:
No, it is my contention that mankind is incompetent at being mankind, because they do not know what it means to be.
You do realize that this makes absolutely no sense, nor does it have any true meaning. It's just a bunch of crap, written to make you appear "deep".
I wish you would stop with the philosophical drivel and attempt to stay on topic, which would be for you to explain how it is you think that biologists are incompetent scientists, but yet, at the same time are more than willing to benefit from the advances they have made in fields including (but certainly not limited to) medicines, food production, and genetics.
Rob writes:
I cannot understand how that question can be answered without knowing the purpose of our existence.
Our "purpose", if you want to consider it as such, would be to reproduce. That's about it, Rob...sorry.
But hey, if you want “more” out of life . if you want some grand plan and “purpose” to your existence, Rob, that’s great. However, you can continue to write a bunch of philosophical nonsense to justify your “special purpose” till the cows come home, but if you don’t reproduce (hey, maybe someday even you will find out what your “special purpose" is for ) then, in a biological sense, you have contributed nothing.
Edited by FliesOnly, : Edited to amend my feeble attempt at an obscure movie reference

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 1:09 AM Rob has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 167 of 210 (360094)
10-31-2006 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Rob
10-31-2006 9:53 AM


Re: To answer some of your other questions
Rob writes:
On what basis do you assert that there is none? Affirming a negative is pretty basic philosophical incompetance. We have no choice but to infer purpose.
This is not about philosophy. It's about whether or not evolutionary biologists are liars or incompetent. Why do you keep insisting on turning this into some sort of philosophical gobbledygook thread?
Rob writes:
But do not be offended by any of this, because if there is no purpose, then I cannot be wrong because there is no offense as my perceptions are simply the result of DNA and environment. And in that case, there is no point in considering ourselves reasonable, sense reason is really nothing more than pure subjective drivle.
You know, it seems that you want to conflate the idea of a philosophical purpose with concept of a biological purpose. When I say "we are here for no purpose" I simply mean the humans are not the result of some grand, Devine plan...that we are the goal of evolution and that we therefore exist for some yet unknown or undetermined purpose. We just are Rob, the same as every other living thing on this planet. We exist because at some point in the past our forbearers got together and did the "mommy/daddy dance". That's it. Now, what we do with our time while we're here, how we behave, what we leave for our offspring...that's a whole new topic and has nothing to do with what we are discussing
You're trying to talk about "purpose" as a moral concept...as a right or a wrong...as a reason. I'm discussing "purpose" from and evolutionary standpoint. Two different concepts, Rob
Rob writes:
If you think I am wrong, then you are imposing your morality onto me.
Really, how so? How does me disagreeing with you, in any way impose my morals onto you? This is just more higgly-piggly nonsense on your part in an attempt to appear deeply philosophical.
Do you want to discuss the OP as set forth by Schrafinator, or do you want to continue with your oh so impressive philosophical twaddle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Rob, posted 10-31-2006 9:53 AM Rob has not replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 179 of 210 (361066)
11-03-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Rob
11-03-2006 2:02 AM


Re: Sorry to bug you, but...
Rob writes:
My point is that they are not exempt from such sins. Scientists are not Christs; ie. they are not sinless. They are not immune from, nor are they above, the pressures of the unruly crowd (think Politics and Pontius Pilot).
Are you a Politician or something? Because you have an uncanny knack to spout a bunch of BS but never really come out and answer the question.
Rob writes:
To answer your question... Not necessarily.
and no, Rob, this is not an answer.
Edited by FliesOnly, : ummmm...just checking

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Rob, posted 11-03-2006 2:02 AM Rob 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