• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage [W:408]

RabidAlpaca said:
So you're saying every university in America, and most of the universities worldwide who award only bachelor of science degrees to engineers have an agenda? Probably a big religion hating liberal one too, huh?

.
Click to expand...

Most universities are crazy liberal, and liberals do have an anti-Christian agenda.
 
Bonzai said:
So were alot of us. But we need to remember the amount of time it took for many denominations to evolve to that interpretation and also the fact that many have never evolved, regardless of the time gone by...........
Click to expand...

It seems like in 20th and 21st century American the evangelical movement has brought about a devolution of understanding about the bible; almost a childlike belief in magic and mysticism while completely missing the core morality lessons about caring for the sick and the poor--at least with some.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I stopped reading at "peer reviewed" and "accepted."

I don't debate people who can't think for themselves. The whole appeal to authority argument is trite and I have no interest in going down that road.
Click to expand...

From my point of view, it's difficult to talk about science (evolution) with someone who doesn't acknowledge the existence of the scientific process. Or feigns some type of ignorance of or hostility toward the peer review process, even going so far as to equate scientific consensus with "appeal to authority".

A dozen scientists reviewing data, looking into a microscope and then coming to an agreement about what they see is NOT Appeal to Authority. That comment reveals a basic ignorance about terms related to logic and fallacies. Scientists comparing data and sharing opinions, then arriving at a consensus IS SCIENCE. That's the process. 2 unpublished, non-academics who call themselves doctor or professor is NOT SCIENCE or consensus or anything. It's a joke.

You challenged people to "refute this video". Posters took up the challenge and tore the video to shreds from a dozens different angles. For you to post a reply "I stopped reading at" is rude and shows a lack of respect for the format of this forum. If you only want people who believe in your version of the invisible man in the sky and the magic used to create the world in seven days, they why are you even here? Why are you trying to engage adults in a conversation you don't really want to have?
 
mr4anarchy said:
From my point of view, it's difficult to talk about science (evolution) with someone who doesn't acknowledge the existence of the scientific process.
Click to expand...

The scientific process exists. See? I just acknowledged it.

mr4anarchy said:
Or feigns some type of ignorance of or hostility toward the peer review process, even going so far as to equate scientific consensus with "appeal to authority".
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is: an appeal to authority. Now, you might think the stamp the university places on their diplomas legitimizes everything they say, and we should all take them at their word without question, you go ahead and do that. That's your right.

I'm not about to.

Universities are pretty much a joke to me. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. It is what it is.

Even if you respect the "experts," their expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim you're making. It's simply an intellectually lazy argument you're making.

mr4anarchy said:
A dozen scientists reviewing data, looking into a microscope and then coming to an agreement about what they see is NOT Appeal to Authority. That comment reveals a basic ignorance about terms related to logic and fallacies. Scientists comparing data and sharing opinions, then arriving at a consensus IS SCIENCE. That's the process. 2 unpublished, non-academics who call themselves doctor or professor is NOT SCIENCE or consensus or anything. It's a joke.
Click to expand...

Again, more intellectual laziness by you. Your appeal to authority will work to convince whoever accepts the legitimacy of that authority.

I simply don't. Hopefully that's clear by now.

mr4anarchy said:
You challenged people to "refute this video". Posters took up the challenge and tore the video to shreds from a dozens different angles.
Click to expand...

Say what? I must have missed that post. Point me to it, so I can read up and be enlightened. All I've seen is a dozen of appeals to authority, a dallop of personal insults, and a pinch of amateur "I'm smart because I read Popular Science" pseudo-science tossed together in a crockpot, roasted up for 20 minutes, and served for dinner with a side of fries.

mr4anarchy said:
For you to post a reply "I stopped reading at" is rude and shows a lack of respect for the format of this forum. If you only want people who believe in your version of the invisible man in the sky and the magic used to create the world in seven days, they why are you even here? Why are you trying to engage adults in a conversation you don't really want to have?
Click to expand...

I don't want to read appeals to authority, when I've pretty much made clear that I don't accept the authority you're appealing to.

Thus, if that's going to be your whole argument, you're wasting my time.
 
Peter Grimm said:
The scientific process exists. See? I just acknowledged it.
Click to expand...

But you said you stopped reading at "peer review"?? Make up your mind. Do you believe in the scientific process or not.

See, I generally stop reading when someone mentions Tarot Cards as a stock market forecaster or Druid medicine as medicine.

But you stopped when I mentioned "peer review" as part of the scientific process. Maybe you only believe in the "scientists" who confirm your preconceived religious beliefs when they say "this cell is so darn complicated and over our heads that only an invisible man in the sky could have made it it so perfect with all these machine like parts that we give machine names to."


Universities are pretty much a joke to me.
Click to expand...

...and I guess the rest of us can stop reading right there. Buh-bye.

Those grapes must be really sour.
 
mr4anarchy said:
But you said you stopped reading at "peer review"?? Make up your mind. Do you believe in the scientific process or not..
Click to expand...

I simply acknowledged that the scientific process exists, I didn't offer an opinion on it one way or the other.


mr4anarchy said:
...and I guess the rest of us can stop reading right there. Buh-bye.

Those grapes must be really sour.
Click to expand...

Good for you. See, if you base your entire opinion on the blind faith you have in the legitimacy of your "experts," then we are indeed at an impasse. It's better that we respectfully disagree, and continue on our merry ways.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
How's that? Also, not promoting Jesus ≠ agenda against Jesus.
Click to expand...

Tenuerd professors go against the grain all the time, that's kind of the point of having tenure.

How often do you see public statements issued like that one?

It's obvious to me that this particular issue raised some eyebrows at the university, beyond what one would expect.
 
Proof that Evolution is Garbage

MoSurveyor said:
The changes happen from random events but the "weeding out" is far from random. Mutations happen all the time. When a mutation is good enough to give it's body an evolutionary advantage that mutation produces more genetic copies of itself then it's competing alleles. Eventually, if the advantage is great enough, it's re-classified as normal in the population instead of a mutation.



Nothing at all wrong with the theory presented in The Selfish Gene, though Dawkins himself said he would change which theory he presented given the chance to do so. Things have changed a lot in 40 years, especially in genetics.

But the origin of life is not what we were discussing here, at least I wasn't. I was discussing the theory of evolution as it pertains to species changing over time until they're no longer the same species they once were. There is plenty of evidence of this.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I was pointing out that the theory of evolution doesn't really have a good explanation of the initiation of the process...

And I'm really not disputing much of any of what you mentioned, but be serious and concede at least that the origins is speculation no matter of position, making the smug tone of your post uncalled for...

You can believe what you want, it doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

The facts are that there is an evolution process, we don't understand the real mechanisms at play, so we call it random.

The fact is that even single celled organisms express a level of intelligence that goes beyond their apparent simplicity, also, the higher the level of complexity of a system the less randomness can be a factor.

Consider how many bakery explosions (random events) would need to occur before one finally preceded a rain of fully formed cakes with frosting??

The extent of the evidence, to maintain the analogy, is that there was at some point fully formed and iced cakes, so there was enough time for the system to occur randomly (enough bakery explosions).
 
Peter Grimm said:
Could have, should have, would have. My entire argument, on this particular thread, rests on the premise that the "piece parts" are inviable as independent organisms, and therefore couldn't have evolved as such.
Click to expand...

The naturalist, J. B. S. Haldane, was asked by a cleric about what he might infer about the Creator, based on his wide ranging study of life.
: Haldane supposedly replied the the creator had "an inordinate fondness for beetles" based on the then current count of beetle species at around 400,000.
So do you think God was hung up on beetles too? Why are there 400,000 species then?
By the way DNA is all scientists bother to study now, evolution is so 19th century.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Tenuerd professors go against the grain all the time, that's kind of the point of having tenure.

How often do you see public statements issued like that one?

It's obvious to me that this particular issue raised some eyebrows at the university, beyond what one would expect.
Click to expand...

No, the point of having tenure is to (essentially) always have safe employment. It doesn't mean you're free to publish anything you'd like. What does this also have to do with anything? "Liberal" universities (what does that even mean?) aren't the only ones that offer tenure unless every land-grant university is "liberal" along with the Ivy Leagues, UChicago, etc.

How often do you see them? Not very often. Why is that, PG?

It raises eyebrows because, well, it goes against basic biological sense. It goes against the very foundation of Modern Biological Sciences and Medicine.
 
samsmart said:
1) This is not proof that evolution is garbage. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is garbage.

2) Our understanding of evolution has grown very much since Darwin postulated it. While we hold true to the basics of his original theory, scientist have changed and altered it as our understanding of the universe has grown to take in that new understanding. Something which religion is quite slow to do.

3) The irreducible complexity of flagellum has been refuted by the scientific community.



4) Just because evolution may be refuted does not justify intelligent design.

5) Even if there is an intelligent design, the argument then must be asked which divinity designed it.
Click to expand...

*snort*

Okay then - that sounds great.
 
It would have been a rather simple courtesy for the OP to have included this in his original post so everyone knew not to bother to engage him.

creationistPosterFull.png


Your challenge was accepted and your video was solidly refuted repeatedly. Regardless of if you ignore it all or not it is there for all (but you apparently) to see..
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
It would have been a rather simple courtesy for the OP to have included this in his original post so everyone knew not to bother to engage him.

Your challenge was accepted and your video was solidly refuted repeatedly. Regardless of if you ignore it all or not it is there for all (but you apparently) to see..
Click to expand...

Consider that maybe everyone's mind was made up on this issue before I posted my OP, and no minds were ever going to be changed.

You all put your faith in men in lab coats, I put my faith in God.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
No, the point of having tenure is to (essentially) always have safe employment. It doesn't mean you're free to publish anything you'd like. What does this also have to do with anything? "Liberal" universities (what does that even mean?) aren't the only ones that offer tenure unless every land-grant university is "liberal" along with the Ivy Leagues, UChicago, etc.

How often do you see them? Not very often. Why is that, PG?

It raises eyebrows because, well, it goes against basic biological sense. It goes against the very foundation of Modern Biological Sciences and Medicine.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is a misrepresentation of what I said.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Consider that maybe everyone's mind was made up on this issue before I posted my OP, and no minds were ever going to be changed.

You all put your faith in men in lab coats, I put my faith in God.
Click to expand...

The magnitude of projection in this post is off the charts - look in the mirror next time
 
marduc said:
The magnitude of projection in this post is off the charts - look in the mirror next time
Click to expand...

Read what I wrote next time.

I agreed with you that you guys were never going to convince me that evolution is real. It isn't going to happen.

However, I'm ALSO convinced that you are never going to be convinced that creationism is correct. Therefore, we're just debating for the hell of it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Read what I wrote next time.

I agreed with you that you guys were never going to convince me that evolution is real. It isn't going to happen.

However, I'm ALSO convinced that you are never going to be convinced that creationism is correct. Therefore, we're just debating for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

This thread has not been a debate though, for that to happen both sides have to at least consider the rebuttals and respond. What this thread has been is you ignoring the multitude of posts that do refute the OP video while selectively responding to tangential issues.
 
Last edited:
Peter Grimm said:
Alright, the "have a nice day" thing is getting old. Cut it out, or our debate is over.
Click to expand...

Wishing someone a nice day bothers you?

Okaaaay.


Oh, and have a very nice day.
 
If the cell was intelligently designed, as claimed in the op, then why does it occasionally become cancerous? Is the fact that sometimes cells don't switch off a "design error"?

Maybe our "designer" needs to go back to school for refresher courses.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Consider that maybe everyone's mind was made up on this issue before I posted my OP, and no minds were ever going to be changed.

You all put your faith in men in lab coats, I put my faith in God.
Click to expand...

A 'God' that you admit you have no unbiased, factual proof that he even exists.

Is your mind open to the possibility that your 'God' does not exist - just as you ask our minds to be open to the possibility that he does?
 
Last edited:
DA60 said:
Is your mind open to the possibility that your 'God' does not exist - just as you ask our minds to be open to the possibility that he does?
Click to expand...

Is your mind open to the fact that 'God' created the whole universe ?
 
Peter Grimm said:
However, I'm ALSO convinced that you are never going to be convinced that creationism is correct. Therefore, we're just debating for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence that you could offer up to show that Evolution is incorrect. It's just that nothing like that has been found.

As long as evolution keeps making predictions such as these, and coming out on top, you will not be able to get people to stick there heads in the sand and say it isn't true. The evidence speaks too loudly.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom