Thread: Refutes against evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMH0bHeiRNg

This video is clearly scientific verification and only to be watched by those who have undergone serious...biological study of life.

Originally Posted by Lady Seidhkona

First and foremost, I am appalled at my fellow evolutionists for not being able to play nicely. Yes, I can easily see that this attempt at refuting Evolution is riddled with holes . . . but it's an attempt at intelligent conversation and the cure to ignorance is learning - we can all help each other do that, but there is no need to be downright rude about it. At he wasn't quoting the bible as evidence and pronouncing it a sin to question him, like some creationists I've known, lmao! Whatever happened to human decency? Kindness? Compassion?

I think I was pretty civil, but I will point out that you're new here. You don't know who we're dealing with.

Oh yes, we're very formidable.

First and foremost, I am appalled at my fellow evolutionists for not being able to play nicely [...] it's an attempt at intelligent conversation and the cure to ignorance is learning

So you just wander in here with no knowledge of past conversations and start judging people based on their reactions when you have no idea of the context?

Do you think anyone would have a problem if this was merely someone interested in finding out more about these various theories? Someone who was actually interested in learning and did increase their understanding of the subjects at hand? For most reasonable people, this answer can safely be assumed to be "no, people would not have a problem with it".

Since you are clearly so uninformed about this, plenty of people have already spent their time trying to (politely) educate Noogah on these various subjects, yet have had their comments ignored. Whether it be UM on the age of the Universe, myself on the nature of proof and the burden of proof when it comes to positive claims, or other examples that I'll have to skip for brevity, quite a few have taken time out of their day and been ignored. It is entirely reasonable for people to get annoyed when people keep making the same mistakes after you spent your time correcting them.

You clearly spent quite some time on that post. You wouldn't feel the slightest bit annoyed if someone simply said "that's wrong", and pretended the post never existed? Especially if the errors were so basic that merely reading the Wikipedia entry for the subjects would give a far more accurate overview (an irony given the original poster states not to steal stuff from there, given he clearly never bothered to read it himself). Now multiply this by about several dozen, and you should start to see why people are being less than civil in some cases.

Certainly I won't apologise for it anyway.

If you're going to start crossing out the irregularities in your original post then do a proper job. Most of the big bang stuff is wrong, along with the supposed problems with the theory. The same goes with your evolution continuation. If you read the responses posted you should've done this already, many if not all of the irregularities have been presented to you.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

If you're going to start crossing out the irregularities in your original post then do a proper job. Most of the big bang stuff is wrong, along with the supposed problems with the theory. The same goes with your evolution continuation. If you read the responses posted you should've done this already, many if not all of the irregularities have been presented to you.

Not having time to make a full fledged response (Like I said, I'll be back Monday) in the interest of staying scientifically accurate, would you please explain your accusations?

Also, don't make me quote myself too much. Read the WHOLE thing.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Not having time to make a full fledged response (Like I said, I'll be back Monday) in the interest of staying scientifically accurate, would you please explain your accusations?

Also, don't make me quote myself too much. Read the WHOLE thing.

Why did you make that long ass post about such a heated topic if you were about to take off for a while? Also, you had time to leave the post you just left. Why don't you correct the paragraph? The entire paragraph is based on an absurd premise. You could just erase it or else quote it and say, "Okay, never mind. That is some bull shit."

I could, but I won't, considering the fact that I disagree.

DON'T BE PICKY!

Everything was off the top of my head.

This thread was not made to TEACH evolution. I briefly ran through the theory, mainly pointing out what I was going to contradict. I was not going to write another five thousand words describing what you already knew just so that I could say "I know the theory perfectly."

Originally Posted by Noogah

I could, but I won't, considering the fact that I disagree.

DON'T BE PICKY!

Everything was off the top of my head.

This thread was not made to TEACH evolution. I briefly ran through the theory, mainly pointing out what I was going to contradict. I was not going to write another five thousand words describing what you already knew just so that I could say "I know the theory perfectly."

This guy makes me laugh. Disagreeing with a fact? That's a new one If you don't care to learn anything, then shut the fuck up and get the hell out. We don't need dense idiots like you around here.

There are such gross misconceptions in the original post that I felt a duty to offer a thorough reply with sources and easy to understand videos and images.

The fact is; evolution is real and undeniable. The evidence is prolific and the facts and laws of its nature are compounding with each year.

Furthermore, there are no scientific claims yet of what initiated the big bang but that does not mean that the proof of the after events are wrong. The studies conducted by the LHC at CERN are still just as credible as ever and can demonstrate evidence for events that occured less than a second after the big bang.

What is important to remember is that science is ever-growing and never makes a factual statement that cannot be falsified. This is directly the contrast of religion which makes statements that are unfalsifiable. The difference is that science can accept new facts, develop, and venture to what is true. Whereas religion makes a presumptious statement to being with and tries to prove that from the beginning. Science sets up hypothesis and tries to disprove them. When a hypothesis is systematicall reproducible and systematically observable, it is accepted as scientific proof.

This is a greater debate, but my premise was simply to demonstrate the views of science.

The Big Bang





The above image illustrates the timeline of the big bang while Carl Sagan explains how it occured. Of course, we do not make the leap to pretentiously explain what initaited the big bang because it would be unscientific. However, there is evidence for these steps.

The Problem

The difficulty with this is that there is no proverbial understanding of the big bang or evolution. I cannot simply explain it all in two sentences. This is why religion is so simple and primal - what else would our ancestors believe when they have no other forms of evidence or data to rely upon but their own meandering? The fact is that we know have mounds of evidence and tools to measure our universe.

Brian Cox is a doctor at CERN and does many presentations of the functions of the LHC which is directed at explaining the big bang. Unfortuantely, you have to have a willingness to listen and learn new things to understand these theories and how they explain our universe. The truth is that, many of us, do not have the patience to listen let alone learn new things. And why would you? You may already have a system that explains how your life works around you, why learn something more prolific and complex?

This is because our life around us is dynamic, varied, complicated, and beautiful. It is difficult to simply slap a label to our universe and thus we have an equally difficult explanation as opposed to an easy one.

Please consider this video by Brian Cox, if you have the patience and willingness to learn, as he explains the LHC and the Big Bang all together.



Evolution

A theory is a coherent system of primitive concepts, axioms, and rules of inferene from which
theorems may be drived. It is a proposition or set of propositions offered as a conjectured
explanation for an observed phenomnenon, state of affairs, or event. (Colman, A. 2001).

Let's first look at what the phrase "it's just a theory" offers:
- That the theory should not be considered because it is a theory
- Implies an alternative explanation or none at all
- States that the theory is obviously not a fact.

Let's assume for a moment that evolution is just a "theory".

When evolutionists hear the phrase "it's just a theory", what they would like to hear are these alternative explanations or empirical disproval for the theory. Scientists endure to find out the true nature of things and how the world works. We strive to find the empirical nature of our existance, thus, truth prevails over pride.

Let us examine how this phrase disputes our "theory" Darwin`s approach began as a hypothesis and then came to fruition as fact, keep this in mind as we examine the following under the pretense that everything he said is "just a theory". So let us consider these key conceptual titles from "The Origin of Species" by Darwin himself to see his approach to evolution as a simple explanation or opinion of things:
- Variation under domestication
- Variation un der nature
- Struggle for existance
- Natural Selection: Or the Survival of the Fittest
- Law of Variation
- Difficulties of the Theory
- Miscellaneous Objections to the Theory of Natural Selection
- Instinct
- Hybridism
- On the Imperfection of the Geological Record
- On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings
- Geographical Distribution
- Mutual Affinities of Organic beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs

When the creationist rebuffs these with "it's just a theory" they little often take note of what is actually being said. The phrase does not actually offer any substantial criticism to what is being said and rests entirely on the idea that the theory is not a fact and can not be systematically disproven.
With this pretense, let us take key conceptual points from Darwin and see how this response works.
So, what I am going to do is take a key conceptual point from Darwin and respond with "that's just a theory" with the idea in mind that, it is not a fact and cannot be systematically observed (in others, can not be proven):

First lines from the "Origin of Species" read: "When we compare the individuals of the same variety or sub-variety of our older cultivated plants and animals, one of the first points which strike us is, that they generally differ from each other than do individuals of any one species or
variety in a state of nature."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This denies that there is a variation in nature. Of course, this is silly and they will continue to say that a God caused the variation, that the variation was with 'purpose' for a final end.

Wide ranging, much diffused, and common species vary most."
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Again, they would likely make the step that this variation was with a purpose other than evolution.

Struggle for life most severe between species of the same genus.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- This is simple fact and incontrovertable. The theist will have problems responding to this one because it asks of them to explain why God will let some species die and suffer while still being a good God. What has to be explained is why a God would cause so much suffering and death between
species. Of course, this is entirely conjecture and an opinion. It cannot be proven unless a God himself reveals itself and shows how they can cause all this pain and death. On this premise, I can also prove a pink elephant in my room with the same reasoning (ie. "i see a pink elephant" "but I do not" "yes, but I see it. Therefore, it is real"). Darwin offers this as a function of
natural selection.

Parts developed in an unusual manner are highly variable; specific characters more variable than
generic.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- How can a creationist explain the variations between species? Explain that this form of evolution is, in fact, the working of God. That God caused this evolutionary step. So now, in the words of Ted Haggard himself, "you are accepting some of the facts, but not the whole, to support yourself".

The absence of intermediate varieties at the presentday.
+ Response "That's just a theory"
- Just a theory? Just a theory that neanderthals existed? There are clear fossil records and mounds of species (and their bones) to show the variety amongst species which we have established earlier. The only thing that a creationist can respond with is to try and integrate God somehow to say that is was Gods idea to do this when we have clearly established that this works
entirely and completely on its own without any supernatural influence.

Let's elaborate this one, because you may find humour in it.
My point here is that, the creationist is saying that God intended these steps of evolution. However, there is no reason to doubt then that this can happen without a God. God is not required for any of the abovementioned processes (and the creationist accepted this!) and there is no denying this because it's evidence of prolific and paramount in every environment. The only room for debate here is for the beginning
of existance itself.

There are many other arguments held within the Origin of Species, such as modification and rates of modification. However, because of stubborn creationists, these arguments have barely (if at all) come to fruition in the public sector. I dream of the day that our people look back and see how
this fact was held back from the world in the exact same way that the heliocentric system was.

Conclusion; next time you say or hear someone say "that's just a theory" ask them to explain the alternative explanation because evolution does not account for the beginning of time.

Evolution is a Fact
After Darwins adventure on the HMS Beagle, he reaped a paramount of evidence for the evolutionary theory. In the years to come, a plethora of work has been done with fossil records and systematic observations. In the end, we have come to show how it is a fact and that the system of evolution
is the quintessential operating system of life itself. To say it is not a fact is to deny diversity, death, natural selection, hybridism, and more. If you still hold it is not a fact, you would have to show how the whole being of existance is actually the exact samething and that there is no diversity of intermediate species within any genus.

Natural Selection:
Those things that can not survive in their enviornment, simply die off.
Those that can survive, will continue to reproduce. This is the survival of the fittest.

Mutations are passed on through generations to continue to adapt to perpetually changing
environemtnts.

Example:
- Say we have a large desert, yellow/beige as can be.
- We also have two rats; one beige, one black.
- We also have a hungry owl which routinely flies over the desert looking for something to eat.
- Which rat will be best at surviving?
- Obviously, the beige ones.
- How does this beige rat continue to exist? It learns the growing dangers in the desert, teaches
its young, etc. Those rats that fail at adapting, simply die. Those that adapt, survive and
reproduce.

It is really just as easy as that.



The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I am really not sure I understand why this is coming up lately. If anything, it supports evolution. Entropy gives dynamic variables to natural selection to occur rather than isolating or limiting it. Without entropy, evolution could not really function. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a fundament of evolution - not an opposition. Perhaps someone could elaborate on how this is a detriment to evolution..?

Age of the Earth



Conclusion

In older times, we did not have very complex explanations of our universe. It was easy; Gods made everything. Gods decided everything. But as we grew along our time, we came to learn the functions of the universe and how no Gods were involved or necessary to implicate for certain things. Those certain things have significantly grown over time.

In fact, natural selection can be viewed within our belief systems. There are beliefs that strive to be prolific unconsciously. However, in the face of the popular views, reasoning, or evidence, many religions have fallen to be either idiotic (Heavens Gate Cult) or simply wrong (Ancient Greek/Roman). Through time, evidence and reasoning will arise to either reinforce or disprove others. I hope that we can all, as a human race, strive for the truth rather than strive to prove our own hopes.

What do you think...?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

What Satan worshipper made that video?

Some Australian guy named potholer. Tsk tsk.

~

Originally Posted by Noogah

The theory:

According to the big bang theory, around 12 billion years ago, all the matter that exists today was all floating around in the fabric of space and timeexisted. Over the course of time, the matter began to clump together and became very large and dense. What resulted was a black hole effect. Matter was pulled into it, and became denser, and heavier. Eventually, all the matter that exists today had clumped together into a tiny pellet. The titanic ammount of stress on the inside of the pellet became so intense, that an elastic rebound occured, resulting in the greatest explosion in the history of the universe. Within a split second of the explosion, hydrogen nuclei began to form. Within a few minutes, very basic elements were formed. Hundreds of thousands of years later, stars had formed, and blew in supernovas resulting in many of the complex elements that we know of today.

Several problems.

1.The theory never actually explains where the matter came from. It only explains how it formed everything. Thus, it does not actually explain our origins.

2.It is impossible for all the matter in the universe to be squeezed THAT densely. Not improbable, impossible. It is not something that can not be done with physical matter.

3.Even if it could be squeezed that densely, there is no way that it could expand under such a massive pull of gravity.

4.Even if it COULD pull away, there is no plausible way that it could come back together to form stars.

The Big Bang theory doesn't say what happened before the big bang, it doesn't talk about clumping matter etc. All it says is that the there was a time when the universe was a singularity which "banged".

1.It doesn't explain this, but nobody ever said it had to. This isn't a religion or a philosophy of creation, it's a scientific theory, deducing what happened. Why it happened is another story.

2.It's not impossible. As others said, this happens in a black hole... singularity, infinitely small and thus infinitely dense.

3.We don't know what caused the universe to "bang", so saying that it's impossible is just nonsense.

4.It apparently can come back together to form stars and galaxies. The force is called gravity.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Life began with single celled organisms that had been created due to the extremely wealthy mineral supplemments that early earth boasted. This, mixed with oceans, and pools of water formed a sort of soup. Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! All the bubbling yuckies resulted in molecular bonding in the minerals. What proceded was the first single celled organism. This happened on several different occasions, until cells were created with repoductive abilities. Essentially, this became the very first species of life. The mineral rich oceans were an oasis for the little guys, and they took to the sea. Variations occured within the breeds, eventually resulting in fins, gills, and other common traits found in sea creatures. Well, this pleasant environment wouldn't last long. The water began to dry up, and land became more abundant. Animals near the shore didn't fare well, but they did farewell.(Cheesy pun intended.) The only species that actually were able to survive along the shorlines were species that had gone through yet more genetic mutation, enabling them to survive on land. The species mated, and reproduced bringing forth the first land apt animals. The cycle continued for millions of years. Genetic mutations continued. The species better suited to land were the species which survived. The other ones died off, or stayed in the oceans. Tiny genetic mutations accumalted over millions of years, bringing BIG changes. Bigger animals, animals with wings, animals with four legs. Continuing, brought forth primates, and eventually brought about humans.

If you want to use "due" in the first sentence, it would help if it's followed by something more directly connected to life than minerals, for example biomolecules.

I'll try not to touch the obvious scientific lingo like "Frothy disgusting pools brimming with minerals, supplements, and all sorts of goodies! All the bubbling yuckies..." and jumps from single celled organism to fins, but I don't know where you got the story about the animals which "fare well on the land, that survived the great migration from the receding seas".

Originally Posted by Noogah

2.There are traits that humans have now, that would not have necessarily been beneficial.

a.WHy do we have two legs? ALthough they seem beneficial now, why would natural selections select them? FOur legs means faster escape from a predator, better jump, easier hunting, and other nice benefits.

b.WHy the lack of fur? Since the bginning of the human species as we know it, humans have found ways to warm themselves in the cold of winter. Fire, blankets, fur coats, etc. Those who didn't often died of cold, or sickness brought about by the cold. Of course, with our superior brains, we don't need fur. However, natural selection would not have been effected by it.

2.Why not?

a. Why wouldn't we have two legs? It makes sense looking at our close relatives and evolutionary past. Four legs might mean faster escape from a predator, but apparently our ancestor didn't have any problems without them. Evolution won't grow handcannons for you if it's suddenly useful. Genetic changes and natural selection bring forth various differences. We evolved from some mammal which happened to survive the way it was. What's the problem here?

b. A good question. Just note that it doesn't hold astronomical anti-evolutionary implications. There are a lot of possible reasons why, I don't think there is a definitive answer. I guess once hairlessness started it managed to hold on. Maybe it's sexual atraction - sign of health.

Originally Posted by Noogah

These two reasons suggest a guided developement. SOmething that saw the bigger picture ahead. WHy would we not need fur? Because we have the brains to stay warm in negative zero degree weather. Why do we need two limbs? As far as a human goes, it's more practical. We have arms that we can use to conduct delicate activities (pouring coffee, typing on the keyboard, driving a car, even laboratory experiments)

I see you managed to sneak in some intelligent design. Tell me, how could you see the difference between an organism that evolves to be a certain through natural processes and an organism that was made a certain way because a god wanted to see that organims drink coffee? Apart from the bias of course - You can't. The design ideas are most likely projections from the human experience. All you can do is research and find proof. Which is something evolution has done.

Originally Posted by Noogah

It's a complex law, and I'll only bother explaining the parts pertaining to evolution. In a nutshell, the law states that in an enclosed environment(an environment cut off from any energy source) things will deteriorate, and cannot grow more complex without external interference. Of course, earth is not an enclosed environment. We have the sun, gravity, the electromagnetic field surrounding us, etc. However, in the case of evolution, this only adds more chaos to the mix, making it even worse.

What? Oh yeah, the sun really is terrible. It's not like it offers anything benificial to organisms.

Originally Posted by Noogah

4.The plausibility of evolution is horrific. Evolution is almost totally driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutations are not exactly rare. However, genetic mutations that have any notable effect on something ARE rare.

How can you be an authority on probabilty when you know nothing about the thing you're assigning it to.

Looks like I'm late to this party. How unfortunate...Seems like O'nus made the crazy notion of Evolution simple for everyone (at lest for devil worshipers)

OOOOH BOY. Have I got MY work cut out for me. Each individual person here can't expect a reply. I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it.

Originally Posted by Noogah

OOOOH BOY. Have I got MY work cut out for me. Each individual person here can't expect a reply. I'm getting dizzy just thinking about it.

Woes..... Look out! Here comes Noogah!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Woes..... Look out! Here comes Noogah!

lol...I'd like to see how he tackles O'nus' post.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

lol...I'd like to see how he tackles O'nus' post.

Or reads it. It was actually very good.

Originally Posted by O'nus

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

I am really not sure I understand why this is coming up lately. If anything, it supports evolution. Entropy gives dynamic variables to natural selection to occur rather than isolating or limiting it. Without entropy, evolution could not really function. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a fundament of evolution - not an opposition. Perhaps someone could elaborate on how this is a detriment to evolution..?

Great post. Here is a good article about entropy as it relates to evolution. It was written by Craig Rusbult who is part of The American Scientific Affiliation: A Fellowship of Christians in Science.

So he's a christian that says the the second law argument is bullshit. Please demonstrate yourself to be an honest person and take that paragraph down Noogah.

Of course that argument doesn't make any sense. The second law of thermodynamics have nothing even remotely to do with evolution. Thermodynamics is the study of energy and things like motion.

Its like saying, "Evolution can simply not exist, because when I roll a ball, it eventually comes to a stop because of friction." Its like, wtf? What does that have to do with evolution? Obviously nothing.

There is another christian that says the same thing Noogah. Please quit dicking around on other threads and take responsibility for this one. I know that you are 'busy' but you have been making a lot of posts. Explain your argument against it or demonstrate yourself to be dishonest.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

So you just wander in here with no knowledge of past conversations and start judging people based on their reactions when you have no idea of the context?

Yeah, because one totally has to read more than a single post in religion/spirituality to realize the complete assholeness of it all.

As a student of chemistry and evolution, I can do nothing but see the faults in Noogah's arguments. Even with a single read-through, it is blatantly obvious he's not well schooled in anything he mentions.

Noogah asked for a fair and decent discussion of the issues with the requisite number of insults kept to a minimum, buuut I suppose doing the exact opposite couldn't hurt anything.

Originally Posted by ifuturist

Noogah asked for a fair and decent discussion of the issues with the requisite number of insults kept to a minimum, buuut I suppose doing the exact opposite couldn't hurt anything.

Well then why has been dicking around on other threads while leaving this stuff up? He's a young earth creationist that wants to take advantage of people sitting on the fence to convert them. Simple as that. Nothing he has done has indicated anything else. He says that he wont take the second law thing down because it's true even though the paragraph contradicts itself. If that isn't worthy of ridicule, I don't know what is.

Originally Posted by Alric

Of course that argument doesn't make any sense. The second law of thermodynamics have nothing even remotely to do with evolution. Thermodynamics is the study of energy and things like motion.

Its like saying, "Evolution can simply not exist, because when I roll a ball, it eventually comes to a stop because of friction." Its like, wtf? What does that have to do with evolution? Obviously nothing.

Actually, there was a paper published last year that shows how mathematical formulation of evolution with natural selection can be derived from 2nd LOT.

In this view, organisms are viewed as energy transfer systems and beneficial mutations enable them to transfer more energy to the environment. If I understood it correctly, the better organism is adapted to the environment, the closer it is to a steady state.

It's open access:
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.o.../3055.abstract