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 »

Dave Toast wrote: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.
this has got to be one of the worst advices I've ever heard. Forget reading websites with plenty of scientific evidence??? It's like 9/11??? There's plenty of evidence to say that 9/11 was a conspiracy perpetrated by a few elite groups, and that I know from reading alot of things. Just have a look around and think about it yourself? The answers will come easily enough as it's 'pretty simple' eh???? Who is this religious lunatic?
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.
talk about tautologies.
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: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.
the second Law is not really a theory, that's why it's a Law. do you have any evidence that breaks the law? If it describes what we observe then it's not a theory you imbecile.
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.
'gaining' entropy AND organization? wtf? Do you know what entropy is? While life on earth is being more organized due to energy entering the earth wtf?
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: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.
species don't really 'change' over time. What happens is that organisms which already have the favourable characteristics adapt, and live on. Organisms don't change themselves when they're living to adapt to the environment. There's no physical evolution and there's no Lamarckianism.
Generally speaking, there are only three common theories for how life evolved from non-life.
you're making the assumption that life came from non-life in the first place.
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.
now this is just hilarious. I don't believe in supernatural, but there's nothing about supernatural that defies causality. A portal opening from midair can certainly be caused. Infact, the whole of existence defies causality. What's the cause that matter came into existence? Did causality precede existence and matter?

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.
hahaha, oh boy!!! Just because they agree doesn't mean it's true....... It's common knowledge? No, it's religion and comforting 'paradigm shifts.'
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.
hahaha, this is hilarious!!!! Yes, it's nothing but a theory, atleast you got that right. Just because some crude and non-living amino acids could have been formed doesn't at all prove that 'from there other essential molecules' formed, this is the exact same rubbish spewed by these zealots.
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
there's no such proven natural process that would do this. Natural selection REQUIRES life in the first place, natural selection does not MAKE life. It's pure rubbish that molecules just arranged themselves so perfectly and marvelously in a blind process with no goal or design. Rudimentary types of life? what a joke. There's no such thing as 'cruder than the most rudimentary type of single-celled bacteria we have now.' Single-celled organisms are infinitely complex and we don't even understand how they fully work yet. They aren't simple whatsoever, if they were we would have been able to make them by now, but we can't. It takes an imbecile imagination to think that through some random process complex life and all its spectacular organs and goals and intentions would arise from no goal or intention or design or reason whatsoever. This I think, defies causality.
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 »

average wrote:Ya, scientific theories like evolution prosper only if they sound and look cool, not because of their explanatory powers. You got it.
well that's productive........not. It doesn't look good to say that evolution is a good theory because it sounds cool not because it has good foundations.
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.
except today evolution is taught as if it's a law, not just a theory with no evidence. it's taught zealously like religion.
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.
nope, bacteria is quite complex in itself or by itself. If bacteria was the only thing on the earth it would still be quite complex. It's not even 'simple' in comparison to other things. Expression of ignorance, that is all? how many times have I heard that childish tone, 'that is all.' Just listen to that conviction, 'that is all.'
therefore evolution is false.
because scientists can't create life.
no, more like this: therefore evolution is just a piss-poor theory with no solid evidence whatsoever therefore it should not be taught as a fact and needs more research.
No thats not why bacteria are resistant, if it were, antibiotics wouldn't work at all.
oh that's exactly why bacteria are resistant, I've read it with plenty of scientific evidence. Antibiotics work most of the time because most bacteria of a particular strain are not immune to it, there's a few strains that aren't immune but they're small, hence why antibiotics 'work' 'most of the time.'
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.
wow!!!! Shows what you know. Should be stated again? Where? everyone else here adamently revealed that evolution theorizes that life began from non-life. Evolution does not presuppose life to have already existed!!! That's fucking hilarious what an idiot!!! The whole point of evolution was to try and explain how life would originate from non-life. It doesn't explain any process of change or diversity, where is this change??? Just species going extinct, and new ones popping up, there's no 'change' or evolution of species.

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?
dense? who is this faggot?
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 »

cat10542 wrote: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.)
this doesn't prove at all life coming from non-life. It's not hard to make amino acids, but amino acids don't lead to life or DNA or complex bacteria whatsover, nor is there any causal reason for them to do so.
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:This page addresses Faust's misconceptions adequately, without going into too much detail.
from the website:

but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

what makes you think snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are 'disordered.' On the contrary, these phenomena are incredibly ordered, with every variable causally determined and perfectly organized to create these things.

'In any nontrivial system' nontrivial???? energy flowing through it? Yes non-life energy creates non-life phenomena. Non-life energy does not create life phenomena. Those examples are also bad because they're non-life materials causing non-life phenomena. If evolution were true, new species should be popping out of non-living materials, but this hasn't happened has it? And what about the biological rule that cells can only come from pre-existing cells?
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 »

Okay, there seems to be too many facets of evolution being attacked at once. Faust is being forced into the uncomfortable position of having to multitask, which is completely unproductive when it comes to any form of inquiry. Given the ineffectiveness of the shot-gun approach, could we restrict this conversation to a single feature of evolution?

I nominate sticking to faust's criticisms of the page that Dan provided, the one which "addresses Faust's misconceptions adequately, without going into too much detail".

As such, if you feel the need to attack faust on any front, it may be most effective if everyone merely contemplates and replies to this quotation:
what makes you think snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are 'disordered.' On the contrary, these phenomena are incredibly ordered, with every variable causally determined and perfectly organized to create these things.

'In any nontrivial system' nontrivial???? energy flowing through it? Yes non-life energy creates non-life phenomena. Non-life energy does not create life phenomena. Those examples are also bad because they're non-life materials causing non-life phenomena. If evolution were true, new species should be popping out of non-living materials, but this hasn't happened has it? And what about the biological rule that cells can only come from pre-existing cells?
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

In the end evolutionists and creationists are confronted by the unresovable question of origins. Evolutionists believe that matter evolves forever, with no beginning and no end. To believe otherwise would put an end to their theory. The creationists believe that matter was created by a supernatural being at a particular time, a being with no beginning and no end. Both arguments have more in common than their champions realize, are equally absurd and can only resolve into paradox. The question is: which one is the most useful - and for who? Oh yeah, wasn't it Faust who 'became a slave to his own creation....?'

z
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

I can agree to only handling that statement...
what makes you think snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are 'disordered.' On the contrary, these phenomena are incredibly ordered, with every variable causally determined and perfectly organized to create these things.
I think we are suffering from a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. The second law basically states that energy can't flow from a cold body into a hot body so if we have a system in equilibrium it will stay in equilibrium barring exterior influence (which is why the second law stipulates an isolated system or one in which neither energy nor matter are transferred from outside the system into it).

Entropy can be called the measure of disorder but more accurately it's the amount of energy which can do work. So, in a system with a hot body and a cold body the hot body has more energy with which to do work so it has higher entropy while the colder body has less energy to expend so it has lower entropy. As the two come to equilibrium the entropy in the cold body rises and the entropy of the hot body becomes lower. When you say that a system is becoming more ordered you are actually saying it has less energy which means that it's chemical makeup is more stable (eg. in an ice cube water molecules aren't moving whereas in hot water they are moving around very quickly).

So, what does all this mean? It means the second law has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If pre-life Earth was completely dead, as in it had no raw materials, energy production or absorption, then life appearing would be impossible because there would be nothing to spark the chemical reactions to make complex molecules, however, Earth was full of raw materials and had an abundance of energy not only from the sun but from chemical reactions below the crust. It's most likely that life first appeared at the bottom of the ocean near high-temperature, nutrient-rich ocean vents and then spread from there and not on the surface where sunlight would have even mattered.
'In any nontrivial system' nontrivial???? energy flowing through it? Yes non-life energy creates non-life phenomena. Non-life energy does not create life phenomena. Those examples are also bad because they're non-life materials causing non-life phenomena. If evolution were true, new species should be popping out of non-living materials, but this hasn't happened has it? And what about the biological rule that cells can only come from pre-existing cells?
You don't know that lifeless matter cannot create life. Earth had billions of years to create what we see today and we've had a few decades to reproduce a chemical reaction we know nothing about. In the end it could be possible that a meteor with basic lifeforms hit the Earth and we evolved from that, however, that still begs the question "Where did that life come from?". Ultimately for life to exist in the universe it absolutely positively HAD to come from non-living matter because when our universe was first formed that is all that existed.
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

yawn...yawn...
z
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

yawn...yawn...
z
Given that response I'll simplify it...

For life to appear through a chemical reaction you want disorder not order. The phrase represents the state that a system's molecules are in so for the complex chemical reactions to occur which would be necessary for life to appear you would need high energy or high entropy because chemical reactions can't occur in a low energy system.
User avatar
Faust
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:29 pm
Location: Canada

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Faust »

ChochemV2 wrote:
yawn...yawn...
z
Given that response I'll simplify it...

For life to appear through a chemical reaction you want disorder not order. The phrase represents the state that a system's molecules are in so for the complex chemical reactions to occur which would be necessary for life to appear you would need high energy or high entropy because chemical reactions can't occur in a low energy system.
bla bla more rubbish. Chemical reactions to create complex life can't occur with disorder, it's not random. Who said that only 'entropy' creates a high energy system? basically, it's just as absurd and supernatural to claim that non-life randomly comes from life, for no reason, than to say that a supreme being made it with reasons. it's inconceivable that anything should exist, let alone the absurd majesty of the cosmos and all its beautiful and meaningless quazars, supernovas and nebulas. with all THAT, it's not any more supernatural to have a supreme being.
Amor fati
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

.......................................................... ''
Last edited by zarathustra on Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

ChochemV2: like many in here, you know nothing about evolution...a definition: In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

z
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Even the ouside radiation alters the state of our genes ever so slightly. We all have 4 or 5 mistakes in our genes, and if we mate with someone with the same mistakes in their genes, we create a mutation. If the mistakes in our genes were to multiply over time, we would create more, and more mutations. I believe that it is these mutations, combined with survival of the fittest that create evolution.
User avatar
ChochemV2
Posts: 197
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 6:16 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by ChochemV2 »

I'd respond seriously but I'm not sure what it is I don't get. I was arguing about abiogenesis which is not "evolution". If you want to chastise someone for ignorance Faust made about the most stupid and ignorant statement I've ever seen about my post.
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Well, I agree with what you posted about chemical reactions, and chaos. This can create life, because all you need is movement, and the three states of energy. Positive/negative, and neutral. Our brain works on these three states, so therefore life is very simple.
User avatar
divine focus
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by divine focus »

Pincho Paxton wrote:Evolution makes perfect sense to me. Even the ouside radiation alters the state of our genes ever so slightly. We all have 4 or 5 mistakes in our genes, and if we mate with someone with the same mistakes in their genes, we create a mutation. If the mistakes in our genes were to multiply over time, we would create more, and more mutations. I believe that it is these mutations, combined with survival of the fittest that create evolution.
I haven't been following this thread too closely, but from what I know, the main sticking point in evolution is the sequence of radical changes in a species followed by relatively little mutation. The changes of species over large amounts of time is obviously a true part of evolution, but the manner it happens in the short term is still up for debate. What causes those radical changes?
eliasforum.org/digests.html
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

Whilst evolution is an observable phenomenon in nature, history and biology, Darwin's assumptions concerning the 'survival of the fittest' should not be confused these days with the still popular conceit that human beings are somehow the fittest. There is no evidence to suggest they are, ( clever, cunning, intelligent, perhaps...) the reverse in fact seems to be true: 'advanced' human activities are affecting the evolutionary processes that generate and maintain life. Climate change and deforestation and war are facilitating the evolutionary jump of animal diseases to humans. Fish farming has resulted in the spread of poorly adaptive genes to the wild. Introductions of exotic species are impacting native species and limiting their ability to adapt and so on...Add to this the plethora of stupid, pig ingnorant superstitious beliefs that seem to infest our species ( The main players:Catholicism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islamism) and it looks like we're evolving ourselves out of existance...It speaks for itself, dosen't it? I mean, when someone as evolved as George Bush is today the recognized leader of the free world...I'd say god help us all...if I didn't know better!

z
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Pincho Paxton »

Humans probably aren't the most likely creature to survive disaster, so they aren't the fittest. But survival of the fittest just means that a horse with 4 legs can outrun a horse with 3 legs, so the horse with 3 legs is eaten by the lion, and all horses with 3 legs become extinct. But of course this example is simplified.
Iolaus
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:14 pm

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Iolaus »

Goodness Faust, we agree again. You are on a fairly hopeless quest here. People just don't want to examine evidence impartially. Those without open minds simply do not know who they are. Some have an open mind in one or more areas, but are comletely closed in others. As if they really have the option to choose where they will pursue truth and where not. Some have open minds for a limited time, for example, they may realize that their religion is bunk, and then go to a slightly better one. Then, that's it. They're done. For life. Their truth quest was just a little, brief sprint, a 50-yard dash. Very common. Yet the above types (almost everyone) are convinced that they are open minded and impartial. If I'm not mistaken, Dave Toast is a close relative of a famous, published evolutionist. (Not Dawkins.)

I'm badly jet lagged and have to go to work tomorrow, but there is an excellent article on the 2nd law that I might be able to dig up when I get some time. It's called A Second Look at the Second Law, I think, so maybe google it. Quite readable.

So what do you think happened? Any opinion as to how we all got here?
Truth is a pathless land.
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

How we got here? What a silly question. No matter what metaphysical answer you manage to choak out of the cosmos, the reality is: YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Get over it...we never got here, WE ARE HERE. Of course you could say it was due to some god, intelligent design or the easter bunny, as all are as equally plausable as the other, but then, you'd be back where you started. What you'd then have to ask yourself is: how did god get here, or intelligent design?..STUCK AGAIN. Looking to metaphysics to provide answers to the great questions, is like riding a merry-go-round i.e. you always RETURN to the place you started. LIFE IS A WONDEROUS MYSTERY. Celebrate THAT; love life MORE than its meaning...ULTIMATE TRUTH = A WONDEROUS MYSTERY - WOW!

z
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Pincho Paxton »

zarathustra wrote:How we got here? What a silly question. No matter what metaphysical answer you manage to choak out of the cosmos, the reality is: YOU WILL NEVER KNOW. Get over it...we never got here, WE ARE HERE. Of course you could say it was due to some god, intelligent design or the easter bunny, as all are as equally plausable as the other, but then, you'd be back where you started. What you'd then have to ask yourself is: how did god get here, or intelligent design?..STUCK AGAIN. Looking to metaphysics to provide answers to the great questions, is like riding a merry-go-round i.e. you always RETURN to the place you started. LIFE IS A WONDEROUS MYSTERY. Celebrate THAT; love life MORE than its meaning...ULTIMATE TRUTH = A WONDEROUS MYSTERY - WOW!

z
I don't agree with this. The evidence is just around the corner, and it has something to do with Dark Matter. Once you break down the properties of Dark Matter, and discover how its forces work, you will discover the creation of everything. You only need to find a substance that can generate perpetual motion, a motion with no energy from its outset, and then it will bump, and collide to create bigger particles. And because we are so simple, we are just a set of energy percentages, and particles, we can be created from a random amount of bumping, and colliding. there will eventually be actual proof of existence. Mankind will first create simple lifeforms from energy fields, and then we will have the proof that we need.
zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by zarathustra »

Ok, when I reach the next corner, and turn, I'll be looking for dark matter...

z
User avatar
Pincho Paxton
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 10:05 am

Re: the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

Post by Pincho Paxton »

zarathustra wrote:Ok, when I reach the next corner, and turn, I'll be looking for dark matter...

z
Well, actually you are looking through it right now.
Locked