the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
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 »

Chochem,
Unless I'm misunderstanding you seem to be delineating between a real science and a proto-science based on predictive power.
I would call that an accurate generalization.
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".
I agree with this. Do you?
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

Chochem wrote: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".
Trevor wrote:I agree with this. Do you?
I don't have any particular problem with it I suppose I just don't see such specific predictive power as a prerequisite for something to be called a science.
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 »

Chochem,
There does, however, appear to be a definite qualitative difference between physics and chemistry on one hand, and biology alchemy and quantum physics on the other. I could call the latter category "young sciences", although "protoscience" has the same meaning. Neil seems to be taking issue with me calling physics and chemistry complete, but I see no reason why there should be any confusion as to what completion refers to. There is a single theoretical construct that unifies Newtonian physics, for instance; and all chemical manipulations after the invention of the periodical table were vastly more planned and coherent than those that occured through the alchemical studies of the Aristotelian-Muslim natural philosophers. Although there is physics after Newton, it is safe to say that Newton invented a complete theory of moving bodies.

I don't mean "protoscience" in any insulting manner. I merely suggest that there is a shit-ton of work to be done before there will be another biological theory with the ramifications of Darwin's recognition of natural selection (which itself has uses beyond biology). Due to its metaphysical completeness, Darwin's theory is, quite frankly, superior to all other biological theories.
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:My principle objection being, of course, that I think Quantum Physics is the modern equivalent of alchemy.
Ok but this is a philosophical objection. With regard to the quantity and quality of scientific method applied in said fields of study, Quantum Physics is quantum leaps ahead of Alchemy. As you say, the term protoscience is far more accurate than pseudoscience.
There simply is not the theoretical backbone to support anything but a bunch of wild goose-chases, but that will come in time.
Again, this is only true of its philosophical certainty. But the theoretical backbone involved and the predictions it makes are as solid as any scientific theory in history.
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 »

Since I can't find a way to disagree with you Dave, I guess all that's left is for me to recognize that calling some types of inquiry "protoscientific" is a trivial, academic, and thoroughly useless point. Biology may be protoscientific because there is no complete theory of what exactly life is (in either a metaphysical or a predictive sense), but that does not by itself invalidate the theory of natural selection or any of the lesser hierarchical theories of life (organism and cell functions, gene manipulation, et cetera).

Now, back to the point: is faust being serious? At first I was ignoring him, because I thought nobody in the real world actually believed that religious propaganda, but I'm starting to have my doubts. My attack is at least from a philosophic standpoint, and designed to look at the limitations of something that should not be dismantled, but only reorganized or improved as necessary -- is his religious attack on modern biology genuine?
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Dave Toast »

It certainly seemed so.

Too much hard work.
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:Now, back to the point: is faust being serious? At first I was ignoring him, because I thought nobody in the real world actually believed that religious propaganda, but I'm starting to have my doubts. My attack is at least from a philosophic standpoint, and designed to look at the limitations of something that should not be dismantled, but only reorganized or improved as necessary -- is his religious attack on modern biology genuine?
the evolution myth is not religious propaganda, it's just a myth and a piss-poor theory with no evidence, that is all. I'm not even arguing from a religious point you bloody idiots, just that evolution is for now a giant hoax. Did any of you even READ THE WHOLE website of that bible link???? If you didn't then that's just f*ing pathetic. Cause the refutation is pretty damn good. fact is, evolution IS practically creationism. Out of nowhere, 'life' and COMPLEX life for that matter, there's NO such thing as 'simple' life get that through your head, that we have yet to know at all, just springs up from non-living things in a perfect mechanism and systems designed for a purpose. This cannot be random at all. Soo, nature designed the environment to randomly wait for it to randomly create life....right.... the evidence on that bible webpage is pretty damning. Right now scientists are unable to make the 'simplest' life out of non living things and won't be able to for quite some time, they don't even know how it would be done, or if it's even possible. Evolution violates this biology law: cells can only come from pre-existing cells.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

Darwin's evolution is like Aristotle's stunt to science for 2000 years, but not as catastrophic or long of course.
Amor fati
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 »

No, faust, I didn't read the entire website. I read a few sentences before I felt the strong urge to give whoever wrote it a very long philosophy lesson. He made quite a few errors very quickly.

Then again, I'm a stickler for fallacies. For instance, I just purchased a few books from the local university's bookstore. One of them is a history textbook on the history of technology. The table of contents compelled me to buy the book, but as soon as I read the first paragraph I realized the guy was philosophically inept and lost interest in his argument. The discussion could have been interesting if a competent thinker had pursued that line of thought.

Now, I can without any sarcasm call you a more competent thinker than whoever wrote that website. You should only be embarassed that you are taking it so seriously, since you could write a better argument than him (and then, after adding a few pictures and editing it for grammar, you could even give it a nice website).

There is nothing particularly wrong with natural selection. If you imagine how trial-and-error might work if no humans were consciously involved, and it took a whole generation for each new attempt... that is to say, as a geological process applied to living organisms over billions of years... that is all you need to consider what is meant by natural selection. It is a logically consistent process that would work, if the parameters are in place. Whether or not nature supplies the parameters necessary for natural selection to occur is for scientists to discover.

There is, however, absolutely nothing random about natural selection, just as there is nothing random about trial-and-error.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

Natural selection and evolution are different things. natural selection may be true, but evolution in hell is not, the existence of natural selection doesn't at all prove or support the existence of evolution, or the theory that life came out of non-life. Natural selection NEEDS life first to work.

to the idiots about the second law of thermodynamics, taken from http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics_01.html

The Misconception About Open Systems
Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems," and that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory. In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics. One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.369

An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures.

However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.

The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.
Amor fati
Dave Toast
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 6:22 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Dave Toast »

Forget reading websites Faust. It's like 9/11; forget the hype and don't bother attempting to sift the wheat from the chaff of the information, misinformation and disinformation. Just have a look around you and have a damn good think about it yourself. The answers will come easily enough as it's pretty simple.

It's also rather like causality in that same respect that you just have to have look around you and have a bit of a think about it. And also in the sense that there's not much to explaining it, it's more a case of whether you see it or not.
User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Imadrongo »

Who says the second law can't be broken? It is surely just a theory that describes what we observe, not something we can confirm to be a law from God.

Anyways, while life on earth is being more organized due to energy entering the earth system, the opposite could be happening in a larger scale outside our planet. For example, while we are gaining some n-entropy and organization, our sun is losing it at a great rate.
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,
Who says the second law can't be broken?
I would hazard a guess that the second law is derived from the ontological assumption that matter and energy are the only possible states of existence. Since something cannot be transformed into nothing, and nothing cannot be transformed into something, we're left with nothing staying as it is (a lack of being), and one something transforming into a different something (causality).

However, the rule that if something exists it must be either matter or energy is quite a large assumption. It has not as of yet been broken, and this may be due simply to how Newton initially defined matter and energy. It may be logically impossible for an existent to be anything other than matter or energy, by definition.
User avatar
Imadrongo
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:52 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Imadrongo »

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I would hazard a guess that the second law is derived from the ontological assumption that matter and energy are the only possible states of existence. Since something cannot be transformed into nothing, and nothing cannot be transformed into something, we're left with nothing staying as it is (a lack of being), and one something transforming into a different something (causality).

However, the rule that if something exists it must be either matter or energy is quite a large assumption. It has not as of yet been broken, and this may be due simply to how Newton initially defined matter and energy. It may be logically impossible for an existent to be anything other than matter or energy, by definition.
And in the end this is all metaphysical speculation and language does not dictate reality, it only tries to model it.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

The entire refutation doesn't refute anything... All the author does is point out that energy from the sun can't be processed and used by life without specific biological structures. So he basically ignores the second law (other than that pointless quote in the beginning), focuses on one aspect of energy input into the system and ignores any other possible inputs, then he says "Well, it's impossible for life to process sunlight unless life already exists".
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,
And in the end this is all metaphysical speculation and language does not dictate reality, it only tries to model it.
Correct. A metaphysical statement can only be true if it accurately describes reality, whether by definition or by logical necessity.
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 »

This page addresses Faust's misconceptions adequately, without going into too much detail.
Ataraxia
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Ataraxia »

Dan Rowden wrote:This page addresses Faust's misconceptions adequately, without going into too much detail.
Well thank Allah for that.

i thought i'd clicked on the 'answersinGenesis forum', rather than the 'answers in genius forum' by mistake for a minute there.
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:
Natural selection and evolution are different things. Natural selection may be true, but evolution in hell is not.
Okay, so you agree with the theory of natural selection, which explains how species change over time, according to environmental pressures, but you don’t agree that life could possibly evolve from non-life.

Generally speaking, there are only three common theories for how life evolved from non-life. And you are welcome to offer alternative theories.

1. Aliens brought the first single celled bacteria to earth.
2. Supernatural intervention.
3. A natural occurring process similar to natural selection.

Now lets reason through these options.

1. The problem with the first theory is that if Aliens brought the first life here, what created the Aliens? And you can’t simply say other aliens because with that theory you can never trace back the origins of the first life.

2. The problem with supernatural intervention is that causality governs the entire universe, and because causality implies predictable and determinedly governed laws that function the same always, then this theory is easily refutable. This is why I can easily refute the story of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God because causality prevents a portal from just opening up in midair.

3. So the third option seems the most likely to me. Scientists agree that life moved on land from the ocean, so it is common knowledge in the scientific community that the first life probably originated from the depths of the ocean. And the common theory is that it took place on the surface of a hot-magma vent that spews all sorts of gases essential for life – so the combination of extreme heat, water, and the necessary gases created the right window of opportunity for the first amino acids to form, and from there, other essential molecules formed, which resulted in a super hot chuck of gunk on the surface of the magma vent. However, through some natural process, these molecules arranged themselves in such a way to form the first rudimentary type of life – it was probably something even cruder than the most rudimentary type of single-celled bacteria we have now.
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 »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:1. Aliens brought the first single celled bacteria to earth.
This option doesn't actually resolve anything fundamental, however, as alien life had to come from somewhere - some process - too.
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 »

This option doesn't actually resolve anything fundamental, however, as alien life had to come from somewhere - some process - too.
that's what I thought too, if you refer to my explanation... ; )
User avatar
average
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by average »

evolution is SO popular, because it sounds and looks cool.
Ya, scientific theories like evolution prosper only if they sound and look cool, not because of their explanatory powers.
You got it.
BUT it's NOT TRUE, it's just a theory, not a law, not a concrete phenomenon backed by scientific evidence. Just THEORY,
You obviously don't understand the significance a theory has in science and how a hypothesis becomes a theory and continues to exist as a theory until further evidence falsifies it.
RUBBISH theory, and rubbish phony evidence to try and back it up. Darwinian evolution, is FALSE, there is NO such thing. No life forms have evolved from 'simpler' life forms. There's no such thing as simple life forms. bacteria, is very COMPLEX!!
Simple and complex are relative terms. A bacteria is not complex in itself or by itself. It is complex in comparison to other things, and simple in comparison to other things. The statement you just made isn't an argument, just an expression of ignorance, thats all.
And we don't even know fully how it works. Scientists have been unable to make the 'simplest' life in a lab.
therefore evolution is false.
because scientists can't create life.
the theory that everything has a common ancestor is FALSE, just RUBBISH, said by vain and arrogant academics. resistance to anti-biotics occurs like this: there are many types of bacteria, some resistant to it and some aren't, the ones that aren't perish, that ones that ALREADY ARE resistant, continue to live, nothing has EVOLVED from a previous organism!!
No thats not why bacteria are resistant, if it were, antibiotics wouldn't work at all.
There is in fact, no such thing as evolution through time!! Time does not change or evolve organisms into more complex creatures!! Evolution theory infact, violates the second law of thermodynamics, which states that you cannot have organization coming from chaos.
Lol.


And it should be stated again, evolution presupposes life already existed, and it explains the process of change and diversity of life we see today. So evolution doesn't have to account for an origin of life. Although scientists are working on hypothesis for that, abiogenesis.


ps - I think faust is trying to play devil's advocate, no one who has access to the internet and books can actually be this dense. Can they?


-
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 »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
This option doesn't actually resolve anything fundamental, however, as alien life had to come from somewhere - some process - too.
that's what I thought too, if you refer to my explanation... ; )
Oh, shit, sorry, I didn't actually read that far. Doh.
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 »

average,
ps - I think faust is trying to play devil's advocate, no one who has access to the internet and books can actually be this dense. Can they?
David Hume played Devil's Advocate when he tried to find weaknesses in contemporary notions of causality to rouse lazy metaphysicists from their armchairs. St. Augustine played Devil's Advocate when he showed that religious rhetor can be effectively used to make thorough philosophic arguments that appeal to both the masses and the elite. Friedrich Nietzsche played Devil's Advocate when he leveled the playing field between Jesus and the Anti-Christ by showing both moralities to be founded on the same amoral principle.

If faust is not being serious, I don't think I'd give him full access to the Devil. I'd say Republican Senator''s Advocate, tops.


btw, it's nice to see that you are starting to outgrow your name.
cat10542
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:36 am
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by cat10542 »

Life coming from non-life

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

(Just some food for thought. I'd actually write something, and comment on a lot of the other things as well, but I'm really busy and tired right now. I've got three test next week, so I probably won't be able to reply soon either.)
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:Faust wrote:
hahaha, evolution IS creationism!!!! Evolutionists say this: all life on earth all had 1 common ancestor.
What is your alternative?
not sure so far, but there's not much difference between creationism and evolution, you don't seem to be getting that.
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.
how do we know there wasn't life here first? Just assumptions and beliefs you're spewing that everyone else is also. There's nothing sane about the theory of evolution, it's religion at best, and magic at worst.
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.

there's no such thing as a simple organism you jackass. Their will pushing them to change does not cause genetic mutations whatsoever. Just more proof of your arm chair intellectual idiotness. Genetic mutations happen when the organism is being made. Animals adapt BECAUSE they're already ABLE to with their characteristics, nothing changes inside of them. This quote is actually a thinly disguised Lamarckian doctrine.
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.
intelligent design??? It can't first be a blind process which then develops into intelligent design, that's just imbecility. A blind process cannot improve itself. And intelligent design would surely not make it a blind process in the first place.
Amor fati
Locked