The Thinking Mans Thread - Evolution Schmevolution. No Offence to the Ladies.

[BoneDog]

El Empty must be dissapointed in his own creation

This thread Isnt living up to its billing

Not disappointed at all, just yet! Due to boredom I've come back to this thread and hope to read it all before I go to bed. I'm nearly at the bottom of page 1 and am wondering if there's anything to faze me on the next 4 pages, or of it'll be a breeze.

Hopefully, by tomorrow evening I've replied to anything that tickles my fancy.

[BoneDog]

I don't think anyone on this thread doesn't believe in Darwinism.

I don't.

We're living in a Post-Darwinian world. Evolutionists know that and already have a long list of failed Post-Darwinian theories.

[Harry - LCFC]

I don't.

We're living in a Post-Darwinian world. Evolutionists know that and already have a long list of failed Post-Darwinian theories.

What do you believe then? Genuine question. If evolution wasn't a valid theory I struggle to see how many species, including ourselves, could exist.

[BoneDog]

What do you believe then? Genuine question. If evolution wasn't a valid theory I struggle to see how many species, including ourselves, could exist.

I don't believe in the specific part of the theory that says monkeys turned into men, or whales turned into land walkers. So many physiological changes are needed instantly for that to happen. The creatures would have died out long before the time passed needed to 'evolve' the new parts. I also think that natural selection is a misleading theory. According to the scientists I get info from, natural selection of random mutations tends to create disorder out of order, and not vice versa.

I know that variation and mutations exist, but those things are not evolution in the Darwinian sense. I'm hoping to post about all that malarkey tomorrow.

Darwinian evolution is a philosophical worldview, and not a real science, according to more and more scientists.

Got to the bottom of page 2 now and there is quite a bit to reply to.

[BoneDog]

Marvellous thread imo. Some great responses, and barring a catastrophe I'll reply after Sunday dinner. Whoareyaaa's quote below is as far as I'll get tonight but will reply to the earlier stuff later on.

The Big bang theory suggests that everything was one big accident nothing planned it just happened, you only need to look at a human being to know that it is impossible for us and everything around us to be one big accident.

That is what I find hard to believe - that some folk think it was all a total accident. They say there was nothing, or a vacuum or whatever, then there was an explosion and the laws of physics luckily somehow came into existence. And out of this explosion, after a bit of organising of planets, has also come dolphins, day and night, stars for navigation, the Pyramids, fighter jets, rubics cubes, apples, Dale Winton and Flymos etc. Impossible to just put together with no outside Agent and I find it astonishing that anyone could believe so.

[The Doctor]

I don't believe in the specific part of the theory that says monkeys turned into men, or whales turned into land walkers. So many physiological changes are needed instantly for that to happen. The creatures would have died out long before the time passed needed to 'evolve' the new parts. I also think that natural selection is a misleading theory. According to the scientists I get info from, natural selection of random mutations tends to create disorder out of order, and not vice versa.

I know that variation and mutations exist, but those things are not evolution in the Darwinian sense. I'm hoping to post about all that malarkey tomorrow.

Darwinian evolution is a philosophical worldview, and not a real science, according to more and more scientists.

Got to the bottom of page 2 now and there is quite a bit to reply to.

oh for ****s sake - please learn what darwian evolution is, because this is just embarrassing.

[BoneDog]

oh for ****s sake - please learn what darwian evolution is, because this is just embarrassing.

I know enough about it to know that it's old hat. Darwinism has had it's day according to many modern scientists, including non-religious molecular biologists. A new scientific revolution is well on the way - even though the science dictators at the top of the establishment are working their nuts off to try and discredit. Those dictators are also proving their ignorance, and lack of scientific method in quite a few ways.

[BoneDog]

The Colorado Bill excludes religious teaching. EXCLUDES I SAY. When evolutionists hark on about 'ID scientists want to teach religion in class' they're making false claims. ID is all about the science and nothing else. All about the science I say.

Right - the first video. **** off with intelligent design - it's a lie peddled by the Discovery Institute, designed to disrupt science so as to force into schools the child abuse that is creationism.

ID is a lie peddled by the Discovery Institute designed to destabilise evolution and get itself in schools alongside it so that creationism can then be put into schools.

This accusation is completely false and ludicrous. I see the Darwin propagandists are hard at work on their science students in universities - as they admitted in the quotes in the OP.

The following articles should put to bed the claims of 'trojan horses' and 'child abuse' once and for all. They also seem to show that the Darwin activists are acting like dictators who are running away from real scientific consideration. The scaremongering from the Darwinists revealed in this article is ridiculous and shows fear and desperation imo

In Colorado, Darwin activists fight academic freedom with gross misrepresentations

http://www.evolution..._dar068651.html

"Yet Darwin activists like Plait and his heroes at the National Center for Science Education bang away on their themes of "antiscience" and "creationism." In truth, under a policy of academic freedom, students would spend more time - better and higher-quality time - learning about evolution than they do now. There would be no other way to create a curriculum that encourages critical thinking on that or other scientific subjects.

"When I was in high school, the best classes I took, the ones that most engaged me, involved debate, with students taking sides on controversial questions rather than submitting to passive, sterile memorization. The most creative teachers understood this."

The language of the Colorado bill and similar legislation expressly excludes religious instruction:

"This article only protects the teaching of scientific information, and this article must not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."

"Darwin activists are very forthcoming with scare words like "antiscience" and "creationism" but they never, ever tell you exactly how under the proposed law creationism could be introduced in science class. Give me a concrete scenario, please, Phil Plait. A genuine creationist lesson plan that would be protected under the law, if you don't mind. You see, they can't."

"Phil Plait gives us an accurate idea, if nothing else, of the kind of nonsense with which the National Center for Science Education equips Darwin activists."

More muckspreading here on the 'Creationism in class' baloney, from Reuters no less! Skewing facts and ignoring the wording of the law they're 'reporting' on.

Reuters going to falsely link Academic Freedom Bill to "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism"

http://www.evolution...babl058481.html

Making religious mountains out of fiscal molehills

http://www.evolution...giou068031.html

Teaching the evolution controversy is a 'good liberal cause'

http://www.evolution...ay_r069141.html

Why Discovery Institute opposes the Missouri "Equal Treatment" Intelligent Design Bill

http://www.evolution...se_t069591.html

Seeing all this shows why it is understandable that some Darwinists yell 'child abuse' and 'trojan horse'. Misled by false reporting and dishonest teachers and science leaders.

On a side note, in these past few months I've found out what an agenda driven paper the NY Times is. Some awful shit comes out of it's pages.

EDIT : In the second quote you said that 'ID is a lie peddled to destabilise evolution'. Got to laugh at that one! If evolution was in any way a solid theory, then how could ID possibly destabilise it?

[Charl91]

EDIT : In the second quote you said that 'ID is a lie peddled to destabilise evolution'. Got to laugh at that one! If evolution was in any way a solid theory, then how could ID possibly destabilise it?

Because there are a ton of crazy people out there, that believe anything, such as a big invisible man in the sky listens to their problems.

[Kyle_Le_Don]

I used to think like you...

Most people that don't believe in something higher are ones that have never really looked into it themselves.

It is much easier to just snub the idea.

[The Doctor]

EDIT : In the second quote you said that 'ID is a lie peddled to destabilise evolution'. Got to laugh at that one! If evolution was in any way a solid theory, then how could ID possibly destabilise it?

Because, as Charl has said - there's a bunch of morons (such as yourself) who refuse to accept basic scientific fact*

Ignore all the talking and focus on what's actually important in science. The evidence - of which we have ****ing tonnes, and I've shown you repeatedly. Common descent is pretty much a certainty - ERV's show either that, or are the product of a 1 in 10²⁷ (at least) chance occurrence. We've repeatedly observed speciation in labs, hell we can even force evolution to an extent ourselves - unless you course you believe the idea of selective breeding is nonsense? The basic principles (mutation and differentiation within species) behind it are well known, well explained and repeatedly observed.

*In as much as anything can actually be fact outside of maths.

[BoneDog]

Because there are a ton of crazy people out there, that believe anything, such as a big invisible man in the sky listens to their problems.

Great arguement.

Nobody here believes in an invisible man in the sky. But as I've already pointed out, you Darwin activists don't half like to bang on with non-existent points. You'll spout any crazy accusation to run away from the science that contradicts Darwinism. Darwinist thinking is becoming obsolete and it's major competitor is gaining momentum. Times are a changing. NEXT.

[BoneDog]

Common descent is pretty much a certainty.

Reminded me of the 'You're not a scientist' meme.

Professor: And so we therefore know that Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with coral.

Student: Is mere DNA sequence similarity in certain coding regions of one shared gene enough to establish this conclusion as unchallengeable, or could one reasonably withhold assent for now?

Professor: We've been over this. You're not a scientist. I ask the questions. You write down what I say. And before you ask, yes, this will be on the exam.

[BoneDog]

It's far more sensible to cut out the travelling back and instead just work out how life would start were sentient beings not involved. in general the notion of a primordial soup + lightning has far more support (the Miller-Urey experiment for one). However, the guy who made the video is trying to over-simplify it for the sake of ridicule.

It seems to me that the Miller-Urey experiment is already disproved, or at least on it's last legs. The same could be said of the 'primordial soup'. Miller-Urey requires an abundance of methane and ammonia, but this is not seen as likely.

"This optimistic picture began to change in the late 1970s, when it became increasingly clear that the early atmosphere was probably volcanic in origin and composition, composed largely of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than the mixture of reducing gases assumed by the Miller-Urey model. Carbon dioxide does not support the rich array of synthetic pathways leading to possible monomers..."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/miller-urey_experiment_icon_of047271.html

Primordial soup - would you believe...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/primordial_soup_would_you_beli031671.html

Top 5 problems with current origin of life theories

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html

The accusation made in your last sentence refers more to people from the Darwinist side. You only have to look at the champions of Darwinism and what comes out of their mouths to see that. I think the point they were trying to make with those questions in the film, was that the guys who keep on telling the world that they've ruled out design haven't actually the foggiest about the beginnings of life, and therefore shouldn't bang on as if they've disproved a Creator. I don't think it was just an underhand bit of ridicule.

[The Doctor]

Reminded me of the 'You're not a scientist' meme.

Professor: And so we therefore know that Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with coral.

Student: Is mere DNA sequence similarity in certain coding regions of one shared gene enough to establish this conclusion as unchallengeable, or could one reasonably withhold assent for now?

Professor: We've been over this. You're not a scientist. I ask the questions. You write down what I say. And before you ask, yes, this will be on the exam.

:frusty:

It's not just similar DNA - it's exactly the same retroviruses, in exactly the same loci, in every single member of both species - I've done the maths on this before in this bloody forum - and here's the quote:

Because they didn't contract the same disease - their ancestor (who is also ours) did. That's why we share the same ERV's in the same loci. Otherwise the probability of them inserting in the same loci separately is, if I've done the maths right, well beyond 3.04x10⁷⁰ - or 1 in 30,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (my calculator isn't good enough to go up to things like 500! - I've had to do it off 50! in 1000, which will give a lower end estimate than in reality).

Oh, and that's just inserting into one member of each species. Take that to the 100% of both species and you're looking at something several billion times that

10²⁷ was a ridiculously conservative estimate when I was in a rush -

[BoneDog]

10²⁷ was a ridiculously conservative estimate when I was in a rush -

So what you're saying is that apes turned into human beings? Nah, not having it

[The Doctor]

So what you're saying is that apes turned into human beings? Nah, not having it

yes - and do you want to know what's great about science? It doesn't care for the opinions of foolish tin-foil fashionistas, fact is fact whether you accept it or not.

[Zingari]

yes - and do you want to know what's great about science? It doesn't care for the opinions of foolish tin-foil fashionistas, fact is fact whether you accept it or not.

Man evolving from apes is the acceptable face of the theory though.

You have to also accept that man (and everything else including all the diverse flora and fauna) evolved from single celled creatures.

What was in these single cells to make them evolve so rapidly in so many different directions and forms ?

And you also have to accept that everything evolved from no brain mindless single celled creatures to highly complex creatures with consciousness.

And you have to accept that this had to happen by blind chance alone. With no predetermined plan or some hidden gene pool or guidance of any kind

You have to admit that if you really think about it, ( I don’t just mean your dogged like study of science books about the theory) you surely have to admit that this side of it is pretty mind blowing .

I’m by no means saying evolutionary theory isn’t true, but I just understand why others find it to hard to accept it fully as solely a scientific based process.

anyway , i'm off to crawl back under my rock

[The Doctor]

Man evolving from apes is the acceptable face of the theory though.

You have to also accept that man (and everything else including all the diverse flora and fauna) evolved from single celled creatures.

What was in these single cells to make them evolve so rapidly in so many different directions and forms ?

And you also have to accept that everything evolved from no brain mindless single celled creatures to highly complex creatures with consciousness.

And you have to accept that this had to happen by blind chance alone. With no predetermined plan or some hidden gene pool or guidance of any kind

You have to admit that if you really think about it, ( I don’t just mean your dogged like study of science books about the theory) you surely have to admit that this side of it is pretty mind blowing .

I’m by no means saying evolutionary theory isn’t true, but I just understand why others find it to hard to accept it fully as solely a scientific based process.

anyway , i'm off to crawl back under my rock

So rapidly? We've found rocks made up of chemical insignia of life-forms that date back to 3.8bn years ago - I'd hardly call that rapid. And it isn't blind chance, mutations might be (some scientists say there's a quantum mechanics aspect to mutations but I don't get the whole quantum malarcky) but that's one small aspect - the rest is down to how well the life forms can adjust to their environment.

Aye, it is incredible to think about, which is why I find it so fascinating.

[Captain...]

I don't believe in the specific part of the theory that says monkeys turned into men, or whales turned into land walkers. So many physiological changes are needed instantly for that to happen. The creatures would have died out long before the time passed needed to 'evolve' the new parts. I also think that natural selection is a misleading theory. According to the scientists I get info from, natural selection of random mutations tends to create disorder out of order, and not vice versa.

I know that variation and mutations exist, but those things are not evolution in the Darwinian sense. I'm hoping to post about all that malarkey tomorrow.

Darwinian evolution is a philosophical worldview, and not a real science, according to more and more scientists.

Science could well be moving forwards, and refining the Darwin theory, and as it goes forward a better explanation may be forthcoming, science has been wrong before.

As for it being so fantastical as that you almost can't believe it, it is true, it is bordering on the verge of impossible, but then any explanation of our existence will do, we are incredible fantastic creatures, we are probably the greatest miracle of nature, we have adapted to the point where we can use our environment to do pretty much anything we want explore the deepest oceans or leave our very atmosphere (I was going to say walk on the moon, but that is a can of worms not worth opening).

[Uncle Phil]

What was in these single cells to make them evolve so rapidly in so many different directions and forms ?

A combination of short generation times, bacteria can and do pick up and incorporate extracellular DNA and can engulf other single celled organisms and develop a symbiotic relationship. These mechanisms open up many doorways for divergence, exploitation of new resources, environments or energy sources. I'm sure there are more examples but I'm not clever enough so I don't know them.

And you also have to accept that everything evolved from no brain mindless single celled creatures to highly complex creatures with consciousness.

And you have to accept that this had to happen by blind chance alone. With no predetermined plan or some hidden gene pool or guidance of any kind

You have to admit that if you really think about it, ( I don’t just mean your dogged like study of science books about the theory) you surely have to admit that this side of it is pretty mind blowing .

Yeah it is pretty mind blowing. I've given up trying to answer questions in here now, it was taking way too long so I guess this post is a bit redundant.

I'll be under my bridge.

I’m by no means saying evolutionary theory isn’t true, but I just understand why others find it to hard to accept it fully as solely a scientific based process.

anyway , i'm off to crawl back under my rock

[MooseBreath]

The chances of us evolving into what we are was miniscule.

But the chance of us evolving into 'something' was almost certain.

Bit like the chances of you winning the lottery being small.

While the chances of 'someone' winning the lottery are almost certain.

We could only ever become one thing. Whatever that thing was, it was always going to be incredibly unlikely.

[BoneDog]

There are far too many miracles involved in Darwinism.

Anyone heard about the monkeys that took a two week raft journey across the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to South America?

I only found out about this yesterday. Turns out the evolutionists thought about a new 'parallel evolution' theory to try and explain the two monkeys on different continents, but that doesn't fit, so they came up with the miraculous raft journey (Ocean Dispersal), to fend off serious questions that would have followed about Darwinism.

Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution

http://www.evolution...32451.html#fn71

'...the rafting hypothesis has serious problems, for monkeys and rodents have high metabolisms and require large amounts of food and water:

"The case of platyrrhines is more difficult to explain as anthropoid primates have higher metabolic rates and do not have the ability for prolonged periods of torpor. A two-week rafting event across the Atlantic must have involved a floating island with an adequate food and water supply."

Atlantic rafting monkeys my ass.

[Captain...]

There are far too many miracles involved in Darwinism.

Anyone heard about the monkeys that took a two week raft journey across the Atlantic Ocean from Africa to South America?

I only found out about this yesterday. Turns out the evolutionists thought about a new 'parallel evolution' theory to try and explain the two monkeys on different continents, but that doesn't fit, so they came up with the miraculous raft journey (Ocean Dispersal), to fend off serious questions that would have followed about Darwinism.

Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution

http://www.evolution...32451.html#fn71

'...the rafting hypothesis has serious problems, for monkeys and rodents have high metabolisms and require large amounts of food and water:

"The case of platyrrhines is more difficult to explain as anthropoid primates have higher metabolic rates and do not have the ability for prolonged periods of torpor. A two-week rafting event across the Atlantic must have involved a floating island with an adequate food and water supply."

Atlantic rafting monkeys my ass.

As I said, there may be inaccuracies in some aspects of Darwinism, and some things that can't yet be fully explained, such as Atlantic rafting monkeys, but that doesn't take away from the scientific evidence of evolution as Darwin explained it, we may even come to a point we were refine Darwinism down to a point where it is actually something quite far removed from what we understand, but if you are saying that the proposed Atlantic raft monkeys that is used to explain one small anomaly is proof against Darwinism then you are wrong. If you want to challenge evolution, challenge it on its core scientifically proven principles not one tiny anomaly.

[Daggers]

I don't believe in the specific part of the theory that says monkeys turned into men, or whales turned into land walkers.

And there, in a nutshell, is your misunderstanding because there is no theory that says "monkeys turned into men or whales turned into land walkers".