the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Tomas wrote:Agreed. Even Darwin 'altered his thinking' after visiting the Galapagos Isles. Ever been there, it is one, fantastic place. We'd like to visit again -- especially since the Internet hit my brain. We were there in the late 1980s (forget the year).

Yeah, all those critters, plants, fishey's, birdey's... absolutely everything! What a wonderful planet to experience it all :-)


Thanks, Faust.
wtf are you talking about faggot???? if you read the bible link, it talks about the galapagos islands and how it doesn't prove evolution at all.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Neil Melnyk wrote:Is this thread supposed to be a joke? Forgive me for missing it if it is. =\

LOL @ biblelife.org. Is this site a joke? Scary -- it doesn't appear so.
If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.
and what makes you think this site is a joke???? You really haven't said much. Have you searched 'myth of evolution' in Google, NO you haven't, why? Because you're a douche.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Overall Evolution is a much more sane alternative than its competitor the creationist, who is a species that will probably go extinct very soon…
hahaha, evolution IS creationism!!!! Evolutionists say this: all life on earth all had 1 common ancestor. Fuck, if that's not creationism I don't know what is. It's just as absurd for evolution to say that somehow out of nowhere life was created from non-living things, mind you it's 'simple' life for them, when in fact there's no such thing as simple life. All life is quite complex. Then, RANDOMLY, this life grew to more complex cells!!! Simply due to TIME! This is just ridiculous, and not 'sane' at all. It's like as if, nature designed atoms to make life in the future, then 'randomly' waited for it to happen and didn't know how it would turn out?????
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Nick Treklis wrote:I'm not a fan of the term evolution either. To me it implies that organisms follow a linear path changing from one thing to the next. I prefer to describe the manner in which all organisms were created with the terms mutation and survival of the fittest. To make a statement out of it I would say; Organisms tend to mutate from one generation to the next resulting in different characteristics to arise. Whichever mutations increase an organism's ability to survive get passed on, while the orgranisms with less helpful, or harmful mutations die off, resulting in the survival of the fittest.
except this isn't evolution at all. not only that, but I would replace 'survival of the fittest' with 'prevailing mediocrity.' Nietzsche cleverly refuted evolution by saying only the majority mediocrity survive because they cooperate with each other and are a majority, while the solitary philosophers and rare individuals have a much harder time surviving due to lack of numbers.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Biology is a pseudoscience, like alchemy and quantum physics.
'life' does have its special characteristics as someone else put it on this thread.
Last edited by Faust on Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Amor fati
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Dan Rowden wrote:Faust, you are so badly in need of an education in science it isn't funny. Your original post in this thread is totally laughable.
here's a punch from a kangaroo. I'm so badly in need of an education in science it isn't funny? Who talks like that, a 15 year old maybe??? Education in science? Do you have one? Do you take courses in physics, chemistry, biology, and all the rest???? My original post is 'totally laughable'??? Right, it's not 'marginally' 'laughable' but 'totally.' Another 15-year old cliché, trying to be funny and cutting through butter with a hot knife but sadly to no avail. "your post is totally laughable" yawn...

how about reading the damn links for once eh??? Did you even do that??? Instead of just pouting it due to your own prejudices and deep seated conviction in the all-too-popular 'evolution' rubbish.
Amor fati
User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Imadrongo »

Faust13 wrote:that link is good because it has scientific evidence
--"If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't...."
Faust13 wrote:Have you searched 'myth of evolution' in Google, NO you haven't, why? Because you're a douche.
Searching that is a great way to find biased and false information.

Try starting with wikipedia since you clearly don't know what evolution is if you think these pages are anything more than nonsensical and ignorant assertions with the only purpose of reassuring religious folk that their church has refuted evolution.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Dan Rowden »

Faust13 wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:Faust, you are so badly in need of an education in science it isn't funny. Your original post in this thread is totally laughable.
here's a punch from a kangaroo. I'm so badly in need of an education in science it isn't funny? Who talks like that, a 15 year old maybe??? Education in science? Do you have one? Do you take courses in physics, chemistry, biology, and all the rest???? My original post is 'totally laughable'??? Right, it's not 'marginally' 'laughable' but 'totally.' Another 15-year old cliché, trying to be funny and cutting through butter with a hot knife but sadly to no avail. "your post is totally laughable" yawn...

how about reading the damn links for once eh??? Did you even do that??? Instead of just pouting it due to your own prejudices and deep seated conviction in the all-too-popular 'evolution' rubbish.
I'm deciding whether not to set out why your post was so laughable. However, I can't decide if it's worth talking to someone who raises the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an objection to evoluioniary theory. I assume you got that from some lame Creationst site. The fact you did that demonstrates your understanding of evolutionary theory is poor at best.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Neil,
There is no such thing as a complete science.
You are saying this prior to asking me (or yourself, for that matter) what completeness refers to.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Dave,
I think you use of the term pseudoscience a little misleading though, being as that refers to how scientific a method for investigating any given phenomena is.
I used to use the terms quasi-science and proto-science, but I decided that pseudo-science works well enough to describe any scientific theory that is so poorly conceived that its first assumptions cannot be justified. It doesn't matter which methods are used: the main ideas behind biology are inaccurate. The existence of "life" is assumed, but never proven.

The arrogance of a biologist is his belief that he has captured the essence of life, when he defines life similar to the way modern philosophers have been defining games: based on similarities, not necessities. This is inept thinking.

It is acceptable for an average, poorly educated, person to say "life" -- it is unacceptable for a scientist to use that term.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Ryan, I can find nothing critically wrong with your argument. I think you have described a very moral stance for biologists to take. Do biologists, however, take such a stance?
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Faust,
'life' does have its special characteristics as someone else put it on this thread.
Yes, Ryan pointed that out. I still have 4 main issues with the claim, but Ryan presented a convincing enough argument that I'd rather present these problems here:

1) It appears to be a post hoc excuse for an assumption (that something called "life" exists) that was made at the start, and then never sufficiently proven. For an entire science, I would call nothing short of a logical necessity sufficient ground for theory: building a science from appearances is lazy. (Natural selection, by the way, is logically necessary; plant cells are not.)
2) What a biologist calls "life" does not appear to be identical with what common people and creationists call life (let alone Zen monks), so the argument between creationists and evolutionists about the origins of life is meaningless. Rarely do the two sides argue about the same thing.
3) The process of natural selection has many uses outside of biology, yet is considered a biological theory. It is being held hostage. Natural selection should be categorized with other, similar, processes; from least to most efficient this list would contain physical collisions, natural selection, trial-and-error, artificial selection, and engineering.
4) Life does not appear to be a consistent category; defining it by one appearance (for instance, the cell) is a step in the wrong direction. It should be defined by a logical necessity, as Newton did prior to applying his theoretical models to the world with a measurement.

Should sciences be required to be accurate, truthful, and consistent -- or is utility good enough?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Faust wrote:
hahaha, evolution IS creationism!!!! Evolutionists say this: all life on earth all had 1 common ancestor.
What is your alternative?

Faust wrote:
It's just as absurd for evolution to say that somehow out of nowhere life was created from non-living things, mind you it's 'simple' life for them, when in fact there's no such thing as simple life.
Faust, but there needs to be a sane explanation related to how life can emerge through nature without there being life here first, and it needs to happen without outside intervention from supernatural beings, aliens, superman, catwoman and the like.

Faust wrote:
All life is quite complex. Then, RANDOMLY, this life grew to more complex cells!!!
All organisms have a will to survive, and when simple organisms enter a new environment, their will pushes them to change, and this is when genetic mutations happen. The degree of change that happens to them is the change of complexity, but many times how they adapt doesn’t work correctly. Natural selection is a history of failures, not successes. Only a small amount of mutations actually survive.

Faust wrote:
Simply due to TIME! This is just ridiculous, and not 'sane' at all. It's like as if, nature designed atoms to make life in the future, then 'randomly' waited for it to happen and didn't know how it would turn out?????
Natural selection is a blind process in the immediate, but in the long term, it may have some sort of intelligent design. Natural Selection is so blind that almost everything that it creates doesn’t survive, 99.99% of all species that ever existed are extinct, and most of those didn’t survive very long.

It is like Natural Selection produces myriads of variations from the previous ancestor, but only a select few live on. Evolution is the history of failures for the most part, it is not an efficient process at all. It’s very wasteful from masculine standards.

Trevor wrote:
Ryan, I can find nothing critically wrong with your argument. I think you have described a very moral stance for biologists to take. Do biologists, however, take such a stance?
Well, I think it’s more of a pragmatic stance, rather than a moral one. And most biologists are probably too busy classifying organisms and other trivial activities to actually consider one of the more foundational terms that outline the work that they do…

There are probably only a handful of scientists in the world that actually understand the true moral worth of creating moral arguments through the filter of biology.
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Dave Toast »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Should sciences be required to be accurate, truthful, and consistent -- or is utility good enough?
I think Quantum Physics and everything it has given us pretty much answers that question Trev. Utility is basically what it's all about.

Personally I think you're barking up a worthless tree but I can understand your objections.
User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Matt Gregory »

Trevor,
I used to use the terms quasi-science and proto-science, but I decided that pseudo-science works well enough to describe any scientific theory that is so poorly conceived that its first assumptions cannot be justified. It doesn't matter which methods are used: the main ideas behind biology are inaccurate. The existence of "life" is assumed, but never proven.

The arrogance of a biologist is his belief that he has captured the essence of life, when he defines life similar to the way modern philosophers have been defining games: based on similarities, not necessities. This is inept thinking.

It is acceptable for an average, poorly educated, person to say "life" -- it is unacceptable for a scientist to use that term.
How does a chemist not fall into this same trap when he defines "molecule"? Or any scientist defining any fundamental subject matter for that matter?
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Trevor,
It appears to be a post hoc excuse for an assumption (that something called "life" exists) that was made at the start, and then never sufficiently proven. For an entire science, I would call nothing short of a logical necessity sufficient ground for theory: building a science from appearances is lazy. (Natural selection, by the way, is logically necessary; plant cells are not.)
All science is build from appearances though, that is all we have to work with. For instance: there appears to be groups of organisms interacting in our environment, and they appear to have some common properties with each other, so we group these organisms into classification scheme called life, as that is how things appear to us.
2) What a biologist calls "life" does not appear to be identical with what common people and creationists call life (let alone Zen monks), so the argument between creationists and evolutionists about the origins of life is meaningless. Rarely do the two sides argue about the same thing.
How creationists typically conceive of life usually doesn’t match up with how things appear to us, usually they bring the supernatural into reality, which isn’t how things appear, so I would say a biologists definition of life is more sane and rational.

Creationists typically argue about fantastic supernatural ideas to make their egos feel secure, immortal, and all the rest of it. Biologists are simply trying to figure out how a section of reality appears to be functioning.
3) The process of natural selection has many uses outside of biology, yet is considered a biological theory. It is being held hostage. Natural selection should be categorized with other, similar, processes; from least to most efficient this list would contain physical collisions, natural selection, trial-and-error, artificial selection, and engineering.
I think the theory is only being held hostage by ignorant scientists who are strongly attached to their specialization and are afraid to lose what they identify with, any sane scientist would be able to see the truth of what you are saying here. I assume it is common knowledge for an elite of intellectuals that natural selection can be applied to many other areas of study besides biology. I have seen models of it used on the discovery channel for things like technological change, computer engineering and so on.
4) Life does not appear to be a consistent category; defining it by one appearance (for instance, the cell) is a step in the wrong direction. It should be defined by a logical necessity, as Newton did prior to applying his theoretical models to the world with a measurement.
It seems to me that Newton defined things first by how they appeared to him, this is how he came up with his theoretical models, and then the mathematical proofs came afterwards.

For instance: when the apple fell from the tree, Newton had an insight into gravity, as he was able to imagine that the earth had exerted more gravitational force on the apple than the apple did on the earth. And then he was able to imagine the earth spinning around the sun in an orbit due to the sun’s greater mass. So his first insights were based on imagining how things actually appeared based on smaller related observations, and then he used this knowledge to work out his mathematical proofs.

The truth is that when we define things, all we have to work with is the appearances that are available to our scope of perception at the time. And technology increases our scope of perception. For instance: In Plato’s day, he would have defined life based on the outward characteristics alone, as he didn’t have the technology to be aware of the cellular structure.

For instance: He would have said life consists of animals and plants, and what distinguishes them from other things is their ability to reproduce, their ability to take nourishment from the environment, their ability to grow into maturity from a more infantile state, and so on. He would have had no idea that they have a common cellular structure.

So to me the word ‘life’ is just a way of classifying common things. It is the same as mechanics classifying motor vehicles into groups such as cars, trucks, and motorcycles.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Dave,
I think Quantum Physics and everything it has given us pretty much answers that question Trev. Utility is basically what it's all about.

Personally I think you're barking up a worthless tree but I can understand your objections.
My principle objection being, of course, that I think Quantum Physics is the modern equivalent of alchemy. In respect for alchemy, perhaps I should simply call it a "protoscience". There simply is not the theoretical backbone to support anything but a bunch of wild goose-chases, but that will come in time.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Matt,
How does a chemist not fall into this same trap when he defines "molecule"? Or any scientist defining any fundamental subject matter for that matter?
There are complete theories as to what a molecule is. The basics of all molecules are contained in a handy table, and the table itself is more mathematical than empirical. Chemistry is only one theory away from alchemy, but I would be hard-pressed to call them both "sciences" without making the word "science" too vague to be meaningful.

Similarly, all physics prior to Newton is only one theory away from Newtonian physics. The theory is more mathematics (calculus) than observation, so much so that the only things that are necessary to apply Newton's laws to the world are two measurements: a measurement of space, and a measurement of time.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Ryan, again I find you answering my objections more than adequately. Only my fourth objection remains in place.
It seems to me that Newton defined things first by how they appeared to him, this is how he came up with his theoretical models, and then the mathematical proofs came afterwards.
To see my own interpretation of Newton, and why I consider his theory to be complete and non-empirical, see my previous post to Matt.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Trevor wrote:
The theory is more mathematics (calculus) than observation, so much so that the only things that are necessary to apply Newton's laws to the world are two measurements: a measurement of space, and a measurement of time.

To see my own interpretation of Newton, and why I consider his theory to be complete and non-empirical, see my previous post to Matt.
Yes, but the two measurements, which work in his formula every time are based on empirical entities. Namely space and time. Mathematics demonstrates how a theory works every time by using numbers. To me, a theory cannot be non-empirical, as they all seem to be derived from discovering relationships within the totality itself.

For instance: most classical physicists made their most significant discoveries by contemplating the relationship between matter, space and time, which are empirical entities. So any mathematics they discovered were always dependent on empirical theories that seemed to explain how part of the totality was functioning.
User avatar
Cory Duchesne
Posts: 2320
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Cory Duchesne »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:To me, a theory cannot be non-empirical
What about superstring theory? Plenty of mathematics going on in that one.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Cory wrote:
What about super string theory? Plenty of mathematics going on in that one.
Lol, yeah, but I don’t think the mathematics actually points to any confirmable relationships in reality…

Aren’t those old boys just making blind stabs in the dark with rusty butter knives?
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

Trevor,
Unless I'm misunderstanding you seem to be delineating between a real science and a proto-science based on predictive power. Alchemists would combine things and hope for a reaction, however, modern chemists can combine elements to produce a specific reaction because they know how the ingredients will react with each other beforehand. In that same vein, before Newton people would say "If you drop that thing it will fall" but after Newton they could tell you how much time before it hits the ground, the velocity of the object, and identify which forces were acting upon it.

Once again, as I interpret what you're saying the difference between Biology and Chem/Physics is the degrees in which you can predict events. A physicists can be given basic information and calculate details involved in an object's movement before it happens but a Biologist can only say "This will happen because it's happened before".
User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Imadrongo »

The purpose of science is utility. Science is simply a model of our observations that has increasingly better predictive power.

Trevor, stop making dumb comments: if you don't provide an alternate definition of 'complete' I will use the standard one.

No science is complete in the sense that they all start in arbitrary areas of observation. No science will ever be complete because the science is part of this world, it is not otherworldly.

To completely understand something you must be detached from or transcend it. This is not our case. Our science is actually very small and has no use outside practical use for our lives.
User avatar
Trevor Salyzyn
Posts: 2420
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:52 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Trevor Salyzyn »

Neil,
Trevor, stop making dumb comments: if you don't provide an alternate definition of 'complete' I will use the standard one.
Hmm, you must explain this process of using "standard definitions". It seems to have, in another thread, afforded you the ability to know Nietzsche's true meaning behind his writings. I recall you saying to David, for instance, that you will use Nietzsche's meanings.
No science is complete in the sense that they all start in arbitrary areas of observation. No science will ever be complete because the science is part of this world, it is not otherworldly.
I never claimed science was otherworldly. I merely requested that it be based on at least some metaphysical fact.
The purpose of science is utility. Science is simply a model of our observations that has increasingly better predictive power.
I am familiar with Willard Quine's theories about science. Unfortunately, there are others, so you are just spouting hot air when you claim that the purpose of science is utility (and thereby imply that there is nothing else to science).
To completely understand something you must be detached from or transcend it.
You should stick to the standard philosophic definition of transcend. I suggest reading Immanuel Kant.
Our science is actually very small and has no use outside practical use for our lives.
Huh. "Practical use for our lives" seems to describe every single thing a human being is capable of. How about you say that science "covers every single thing human beings are capable of" instead of "is actually very small".
Locked