Proof that Evolution is Garbage [W:408]

Peter Grimm said:

How very phallic of you.

Click to expand...

Kirk Cameron agrees

I think it's extremely telling that no one thinks this thread belongs in the science forum.

Paschendale said:

I think it's extremely telling that no one thinks this thread belongs in the science forum.

Click to expand...

Meh, there are lots of threads that belong in the science forum that end up in here (especially so with "evolutionism", "Darwinism" and other evil isms). I see little point in pointing it out, but I have thought the exact same many times. If these threads actually went where they belonged they would just die before they had a chance to generate much discussion IMO, and would not attract much in conflicting viewpoints with the exception of whomever started the thread. No fun in that, so why fight it. Just field the arguments in whatever arena they step up to the plate at.

marduc said:

Meh, there are lots of threads that belong in the science forum that end up in here (especially so with "evolutionism", "Darwinism" and other evil isms). I see little point in pointing it out, but I have thought the exact same many times. If these threads actually went where they belonged they would just die before they had a chance to generate much discussion IMO, and would not attract much in conflicting viewpoints with the exception of whomever started the thread. No fun in that, so why fight it. Just field the arguments in whatever arena they step up to the plate at.

Click to expand...

I just think it's interesting how the anti science crowd thinks that the origin of the Earth, of life, or of humanity actually depends on how they feel about it. This thread is about a (bad) attempt by (bad) scientists to (incorrectly) disprove a scientific theory. That even its proponents don't think it's science shows how little understanding or regard they have for science.

Paschendale said:

I just think it's interesting how the anti science crowd thinks that the origin of the Earth, of life, or of humanity actually depends on how they feel about it. This thread is about a (bad) attempt by (bad) scientists to (incorrectly) disprove a scientific theory. That even its proponents don't think it's science shows how little understanding or regard they have for science.

Click to expand...

I have felt the same, I think that the reason these threads end up here is because of a refusal to accept its legitimacy as science.

Why, Peter Grimm, do you so need for the OP to be correct?

DA60 said:

Typical religious over zealousness...lots of telling, not much asking or listening.


I have an angle for you....I could care less how humankind began.

But if it did matter much to me, I sure as heck will believe a bunch of brilliant scientists more then a bunch of child-molesting priests and their leap-of-faith book they carry around as to the origin of humankind.


And btw - it is 'humankind', not 'mankind'...it's 2013, not 1973.


Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Translation:

"I don't want to believe that I am not the top of my own food chain because if I had to admit there is a power bigger than me I might have to admit that my own personal gratification may not be the most important aspect to my life and I don't like that. So I'm going to cherry pick what I want to believe and insult everyone else who doesn't agree with me."

That's cute. Here's a hint for you: we all used to think the same thing back when we figured out we knew everything and our parents were stupid. It's ok. We'll talk later once you figure it out.In the mean time keep in mind that it is tolerance that makes it possible for the rest of us to put up with arrogant children like you.

marduc said:

Not only does this argument fail scientific scrutiny, but it was literally put on trial, and it failed.

Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect, scientific arguments should not be resolved in courts. What's next, military tribunals?

And: Judge Jones was simply wrong, in agreeing that Dover had violated the Establishment Clause: whatever the motivation of promoters of intelligent design, it is not, in itself, a part of any religion and does not necessitate religious or mystical interpretation.

(As far as I am concerned, intelligent design should be a part of curricula: an excellent opportunity to discuss scientific method and fallacies that always lay in ambush).

tech30528 said:

if I had to admit there is a power bigger than me I might have to admit that my own personal gratification may not be the most important aspect to my life and I don't like that.

Click to expand...

(1) How does a methodically helpless theory such as intelligent design (as expressed by Behe and Co anyway) lead to the "admission of a bigger power"?

(2) How does the absence of such admission makes "personal gratification" "the most important aspect" of life? Unless you assume, of course, that anything and everything in life not embraced by direct commandments of the Imaginary Friend (in any contemporary, local interpretation) is "personal gratification".

Cyrylek said:

Well, with all due respect, scientific arguments should not be resolved in courts. What's next, military tribunals?

And: Judge Jones was simply wrong, in agreeing that Dover had violated the Establishment Clause: whatever the motivation of promoters of intelligent design, it is not, in itself, a part of any religion and does not necessitate religious or mystical interpretation.

(As far as I am concerned, intelligent design should be a part of curricula: an excellent opportunity to discuss scientific method and fallacies that always lay in ambush).

Click to expand...

I agree scientific arguments should not be, and are not resolved in courts.

I present this because no matter what else put forth, those who doubt the validity of evolution will not accept that it has passed scientific scrutiny. Presenting that it was in court, and a judge (a christian conservative judge no less) weighed the evidence that the scientific community put before him from a neutral perspective is more likely to carry weight with the people I am responding to. Scientific evidence, regardless of how valid or solid that evidence is wold just get hand waved away and would not even be considered in many cases. This is why I posted the info about the ruling in the court case.

And no, there should not be time wasted in a scientific criteria discussing things that are not scientific, but that is another debate entirely.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage

Interesting find OP...

samsmart said:

1) This is not proof that evolution is garbage. Rather, it is evidence that evolution is garbage.

Click to expand...

I would say that in this case, while I do agree that proof is often an overused word, that this is proof that DARWIN'S theory of evolution is false. The fact is though that there IS an evolutionary process that's pretty well recorded... Just that it's proven, in a sense, that this is no a RANDOM process, but an INTELLIGENT process.

I've seen enough from the implications of some of the findings of quantum mechanics and in some of the intelligence noted down to the single celled organism, where I had previously made the postulation that it would eventually be shown that life is conscious / aware from the start and the biology gets built based on the surroundings... And that even the original evolution of the single cell to the multiple celled organism requires a level of communication and cooperation tha goes beyond the intelligence typically attributed to the single cell.

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.

Click to expand...

Well, it's hardly a religious position... And Darwin's theory being shown wrong doesn't prove the creationists correct... Not by a long shot.

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

Click to expand...

It seems not fully though, since it's not fully irreducible, but removing some proteins did impair the working of the flagellum. Seems a modest overstatement.

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

Click to expand...

True, disproving one does not prove the other since there's mountains of evidence supporting an evolutionary process.

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

Click to expand...

That's a legitimate question that science will inevitably have to confront.

BmanMcfly said:

That's a legitimate question that science will inevitably have to confront.

Click to expand...

Not until intelligent design becomes irrefutable. Which won't happen until a divinity makes itself known. Until that happens, science won't have to confront this particular question at all.

Typical zealous tripe, if not science therefor god. Its never the other way around with them...

You'd expect otherwise given that every mystery ever solved turned out to be NOT religious magic.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage

samsmart said:

Not until intelligent design becomes irrefutable. Which won't happen until a divinity makes itself known. Until that happens, science won't have to confront this particular question at all.

Click to expand...

Evolution as an "intelligent" process != intelligent design theory, and also != to (but closely resembling) evolution as science describes it.

Peter Grimm said:

Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

You do realize that science changing is not a bad thing, but proof of it's intellectual validity, right?

Peter Grimm said:

Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Click to expand...

Religion does the same thing man.

Peter Grimm said:

Since science keeps changing its mind, chances are it will happen again... which means a good majority of what you hold to be infallible today will one day be disproved by the very people you put so much trust in.

Click to expand...

The reason that science "changes its mind" is that it is always seeking the truth, restated from the evidence it discovers. The reason that religion never "changes its mind" is that it simply spin doctors everything to attempt to validate fairly tales.

The hypothesis that cellular complexity is too complex to suit Darwinism is silly - and just what I would expect.

tech30528 said:

Translation:

"I don't want to believe that I am not the top of my own food chain because if I had to admit there is a power bigger than me I might have to admit that my own personal gratification may not be the most important aspect to my life and I don't like that. So I'm going to cherry pick what I want to believe and insult everyone else who doesn't agree with me."

That's cute. Here's a hint for you: we all used to think the same thing back when we figured out we knew everything and our parents were stupid. It's ok. We'll talk later once you figure it out.In the mean time keep in mind that it is tolerance that makes it possible for the rest of us to put up with arrogant children like you.

Click to expand...

Lol...once again typical religious over zealousness...disregard what people say...tell them what they 'really' think.

Talk about arrogance.


Okay, put up time. Here is your chance, you have the floor, let's see what you've got...prove to us all right now that your God exists.

Not with some pathetic, ridiculous 'leap of faith' nonsense or some INCREDIBLY biased book.

I am talking about facts...proven facts from completely unbiased sources that this God of yours existed and did the things he claims he has done and will do.

Come on....where is your links to this gigantic proof.

Guess what?

YOU GOT NOTHING.

ZERO.

NADA.

NO UNBIASED PROOF WHATSOEVER.

All you have is some pathetic, mostly fictional book that you cling onto and pathetic, empty headed faith.

Unless you are one of those people that claims that 'God spoke to me'.

In which case, you need medication, because hearing voices is a serious mental disorder.





Thousands of religions in the world...almost all of them based on theirs being the only one that is right and none of them can prove it using unbiased, proven sources.

The level of intellectual suspension one has to experience to fall for these 'clubs' (which is all religions are) is mind boggling.

And then many of these idiots actually go around hurting/killing each other because they think their club is the only good club.

And most of the rest of them keep trying to ram it down people's throats.

They meet in their club houses (churches/mosques/whatever) once a week, read from the club handbook (bible/Koran/whatever), do some chanting, convince themselves that they have the best club and then leave with empty headed smiles on their faces.

Oh...but many of the Catholic clubs have the young boys stay behind so the club Prez's can sodomize them.



Have a nice day.

Your Star said:

You do realize that science changing is not a bad thing, but proof of it's intellectual validity, right?

Click to expand...

You do realize that a claim is either correct or incorrect, right? If something has been proved false, it was a load of hot garbage all along.

99% of "science" is hot garbage, because it will be proved false eventually.

That's the track record of science. It's bound to be wrong, most of the time. If you don't believe me, take a hard and honest look at the scientific "facts" assumed to be true in the past 100 years, and take a look at how many have been discarded since.

However, if you've been convinced that believing in something that's 99% likely to be proved to be horse**** in the future is a sign of its "intellectual validity," then good for you. I don't need to be debating lemmings who can't think for themselves.

Proof that Evolution is Garbage

Peter Grimm said:

You do realize that a claim is either correct or incorrect, right? If something has been proved false, it was a load of hot garbage all along.

99% of "science" is hot garbage, because it will be proved false eventually.

That's the track record of science. It's bound to be wrong, most of the time. If you don't believe me, take a hard and honest look at the scientific "facts" assumed to be true in the past 100 years, and take a look at how many have been discarded since.

However, if you've been convinced that believing in something that's 99% likely to be proved to be horse**** in the future is a sign of its "intellectual validity," then good for you. I don't need to be debating lemmings who can't think for themselves.

Click to expand...

Well, it's garbage, but it's the explanation that serves the needs of the time, and it's through the process of refining the good and dropping the bad that improves science... Exponentially really.

BmanMcfly said:

Well, it's garbage, but it's the explanation that serves the needs of the time, and it's through the process of refining the good and dropping the bad that improves science... Exponentially really.

Click to expand...

I would love for somebody to prove to me how it actually "improves" science.

It might actually change my mind.

My biggest criticism of science is that it's inconsistent.

Peter Grimm said:

You do realize that a claim is either correct or incorrect, right? If something has been proved false, it was a load of hot garbage all along.

99% of "science" is hot garbage, because it will be proved false eventually.

That's the track record of science. It's bound to be wrong, most of the time. If you don't believe me, take a hard and honest look at the scientific "facts" assumed to be true in the past 100 years, and take a look at how many have been discarded since.

However, if you've been convinced that believing in something that's 99% likely to be proved to be horse**** in the future is a sign of its "intellectual validity," then good for you. I don't need to be debating lemmings who can't think for themselves.

Click to expand...

And where is your links to unbiased sources that this is so?

Guess what...you don't have one.


And where is your link to unbiased, factual proof that your 'God' exists.

And remember...the Bible is biased and leap-of-faith does not count.

Guess what...you don't have one of those either.


Have a nice day.

Peter Grimm said:

I would love for somebody to prove to me how it actually "improves" science.

It might actually change my mind.

My biggest criticism of science is that it's inconsistent.

Click to expand...

And my biggest critics of religion (apart from people often kill one another in the name of it) is that there is ZERO unbiased, factual proof that ANY of it is true to the slightest degree.

Every single religious person in the world is so because they are either a) nuts, b) desperate and so they take the leap of faith without ANY unbiased, factual proof to back it up or c) it's been rammed down their throats by people they look up to that they take it on blind faith and don't look to closely at it (sort of another leap-of-faith).

DA60 said:

And my biggest critics of religion (apart from people often kill one another in the name of it) is that. There is ZERO unbiased, factual proof that ANY of it is true to the slightest degree.

Every single religious person in the world is so because they are either a) nuts, b) desperate and so they take the leap of faith without ANY unbiased, factual proof to back it up or c) it's been rammed down their throats by people they look up to that they take it on blind faith and don't look to closely at it (sort of another leap-of-faith).

Click to expand...

So your ego won't allow you to believe what somebody else.... not me, but sources from thousands of years of human history..... tell you.

BTW, the word you're looking for is "critique" not "critic."