|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 114 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
I see, my mistake entirely.
You're an idiot. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
You won't resolve your cognitive dissonances by calling me an idiot. Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs. Given the fact that ToE contradicts reality on every instance of observation I know that evolutionists have these contradictory beliefs which makes them become psychologically uncomfortable, and then they insult people. But the problem is not other people. The problem is the state of mind in which evolutionists think something to be the case, without there being empirical evidence to prove it. Hence to resolve your mental stress you must free yourself out of arms of ToE. Insulting people won't help you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 672 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
forexhr writes:
Reproduction involves two generations, the producer(s) and the product. The product is different from the individual producers. That is what drives evolution.
You can repeat your mantra all you want, but it's not going to change the fact that individual organisms are what live, die, and reproduce, not populations. And in order to have evolution you need reproduction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
Maybe you should actually learn about the TOE before you try to attack it. What you are attacking is not the TOE. I have no idea what it is you are attacking. Please show some source that agrees with what you think the TOE is.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 6.3 |
Double post. Joys of smartphones
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
I am not attacking the ToE in the same way as I am not attacking the flat Earth theory if I say that the Earth is round. In saying this I am simply stating the observation that the Earth is round and I don't care about the mental BS that individuals from modern flat Earth societies produced in the form of their flat Earth theory or whatever.
Likewise, regarding evolution, I am simply stating the observation that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from matter and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam cannot exist in a simpler mode. So I don't care about the ToE, I am not attacking its infinite number of presuppositions. I am simply stating the fact that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms. The ToE in that regard, is just an atheistic rationalization, complex defence mechanism for denying the obvious - that living things are produced by an intelligent cause. And I don't care about atheistic rationalizations, so no - I am not attacking the ToE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Likewise, regarding evolution, I am simply stating the observation that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from matter and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam cannot exist in a simpler mode. So I don't care about the ToE, I am not attacking its infinite number of presuppositions. I am simply stating the fact that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms. And yet, there is a large diversity of species. You can say all you want, meanwhile scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution to solve problems and learn new stuff. It simply works as an explanation despite your erroneous attempts to say it doesn't. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. With evolution, practically everything does make sense. And the theory works. So there's that.
I am not attacking the ToE. You could've told us that in the beginning... So anyways, to the question of your thread: "Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?" The answer is: Yes, the argument has been disproved in multiple ways by a number of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
No, what I really mean is "Can an evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for a gradual development of complex systems without presupposing something that is contradicted by direct empirical science. If system like eyes evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps then why does the step by step removal or deformation of eye components results in blindness and not in some simpler mode of vision? Presupposing that eyes evolved gradually without even considering this empirical question is what makes the evolution theory pseudoscience. This would only be the case if changes consisted solely in adding new things on top; while everything that was already there remains the same. If you turned off the internet then the company I work for would stop working. Everything that we do, every work process we have in place, every system that we use is reliant on a functional internet. It would be silly from this to conclude that we always had the internet. Our company predates the internet, and there are people old enough to remember that. Since the internet became available, however, various organisational and technological changes have happened in our company; and they have all happened in an internet-capable environment. Therefore we've built a whole structure which is reliant on the internet, and which ceases to function without it. I hope the analogy is clear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 829 From: Orlando,FL Joined:
|
forexhr writes:
Fixed it for you. You need to learn what the word "fact" means.
I am simply stating my unsupported by reality opinion that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
kjsimons writes: Fixed it for you. You need to learn what the word "fact" means. The meaning behind this word is pretty simple - something known by actual experience or observation. Share of bio-functionality in matter is known by actual experience or observation. The maximum number of resources available to extract this bio-functionality is known by actual experience or observation. The inability of an organism to live or to pass on its genes to the next generation, if we deform or reduce its maintenance or reproduction apparatus, is also known by actual experience or observation. On the other hand, claims like: "evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them", as a response to the fact of small share of bio-functionality in matter, is just an ambiguous mental construct totally irrelevant to the issue in question, because every process in nature starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them - raining, wind blowing, radiation, nuclear fission, chemical reaction... So, what does the 'modification of pre-existing materials' has to do with the lack of resources available to extract bio-functionality from matter? Nothing. This is just an empty mental construct, fiction, an excuse for beliefs that are totally the opposite of what the actual experience or observation shows. So, you can play your rhetorical games all you want, but facts will stay facts and fiction will stay fiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You have obviously convinced yourself that you have disproved evolution. Meanwhile scientists will continue to make discoveries by applying evolutionary theory regardless of your claims. The gold standard test of a scientific theory is prediction leading to discovery. It's all about discoveries.
How do scientists make discoveries relating to the prehistoric past? Do you think archaeologists just start randomly digging around willy nilly without any idea why? Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik quote: So evolutionary theory leads to discoveries. What discoveries have you made by applying your bio-functionality idea? If the answer to that question is "none" then I'm afraid that there really is no contest here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Scientists make discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason, while motivation or effort of an individual is what leads to discoveries. The ToE on the other hand is just a naive opinion, that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again exactly because scientists made discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason. Tying this naive opinion to science and discoveries is really tragicomical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
forexhr writes: The ToE on the other hand is just a naive opinion, that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again exactly because scientists made discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason. You keep making really stupid statements and as with all Creationists never provide the evidence to support your absurdities. Where is there any evidence that disproves evolution? There sure has not been any presented in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
The theory of evolution has successfully led to discoveries. I have given you a specific example of such.
Other than your own somewhat premature conclusion that evolution has been disproven, what has your little idea led to? I will tell you - Nothing.
that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again Firstly - Changing positions of molecules....? Secondly - You are aware that the development from zygote to fully formed body comprised of heart, liver, kidney, brain etc. does occur in the womb, has been observed and that you would not be here but for that fact. How does your idea of molecular arrangement and the statistical likelihood of specific arrangements explain that? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forexhr Member (Idle past 2328 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
jar writes:
Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources. All your responses were either red herrings or can be boiled down to this statement: "Evolution does not start from scratch but it builds on what already exists." You keep making really stupid statements and as with all Creationists never provide the evidence to support your absurdities. Where is there any evidence that disproves evolution? There sure has not been any presented in this thread. This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk. Yes, pre-existing function is junk in the same way as functional traction battery is junk in the context of petrol car engine or in the same way as semantically correct word "technology" is junk in the context of the question "What day is today? In we use the last analogy in the evolutionary context , and we say that the question "What day is today? is newly emerged environmental niche, then functional protein fold - "technology" is equally junk as this: "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo". "Junk" is simply anything that is regarded as worthless, meaningless, or nonfunctional in some context. Traction battery is worthless in the context of petrol car engine while "technology" and "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo" are worthless in the context of the question "What day is today?, Likewise, pre-existing functional bio-structures are worthless in the context of new structural or environmental niches. So, in order to bulid new organs, protein folds, metabolic pathways, ... evolution must start from scratch and the presupposition of the ToE that it does not, is flawed, the same as most of its presuppositions. Regarding my second argument, that talks about the structural and temporal intradependence of bio-structures, it was ignored completely on this thread. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024