Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[HitchSlap]

In a nutshell he's saying that the ToE is 'smoke and mirrors' and is only possible in the minds of it's adherents.

Allow me to nut shell my response to his claim then; he's wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah, so, have you ever, like, read a book on ToE that wasn't written by a cdesign proponentsist? Just one?

Anyone who honestly read "Origin of Species" would never claim that Darwin did not follow evidence and use a scientific approach. No one.

Another somewhat obscure fact is that Alfred Russel Wallace was arriving at the same theory completely independently of Darwin. They both followed the evidence and came to the same conclusion, completely on their own.

The audacity to then claim that "Oh, it's all a religious belief" is born of ignorance of how the theory really came about. Or at least I hope that it is based on ignorance. The other option is that lifepsyop is purposefully being dishonest.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I just know I'm going to kick myself for this, but please explain how evolution is utterly impossible.

Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.

 

[selfinflikted]

Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.

What are the odds? Show your work.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What are the odds? Show your work.

I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

 

[selfinflikted]

I said contemplated, not calculated.

Then how do you know the odds are impossible.

Hint: They aren't.

 

[bhsmte]

It's the 'reaction du jour' when one disagrees with another here.

For some, but it is a tool and everyone uses it differently.

Myself, I have only used the tool once and it did it's job.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then how do you know the odds are impossible.

Hint: They aren't.

Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

 

[selfinflikted]

Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

You keep saying that, but you have failed to demonstrate it. I can say anything I like, but it won't necessarily make it true.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

Difficult for you maybe, I personally don't care if you find evolution hard to comprehend, it has no impact on whether or not evolution is possible.

 

[bhsmte]

Difficult for you maybe, I personally don't care if you find evolution hard to comprehend, it has no impact on whether or not evolution is possible.

But that is so easy. If they can't (or refuse) to understand it, it must not be true.

 

[Split Rock]

It's the 'reaction du jour' when one disagrees with another here.

I only put people on Ignore if:
A. They are constantly being insulting/ flaming
B. They are intransigent and do nothing but repeat themselves
C. They are clearly trolling.

All of which are against forum rules of behavior, btw.

 

[Split Rock]

Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.

I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

It is very common for creationists to dismiss evolution because they cannot imagine how it can happen. It has nothing to due with actually calculating odds.

 

[bhsmte]

I only put people on Ignore if:
A. They are constantly being insulting/ flaming
B. They are intransigent and do nothing but repeat themselves
C. They are clearly trolling.

All of which are against forum rules of behavior, btw.

Nothing wrong with that.

For me, I will tolerate a lot of the above, if I feel there is some entertainment value in it. When that goes away, nothing left to intrigue me.

 

[lasthero]

I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

It's difficult to imagine anything when you don't really know anything about it.

 

[Split Rock]

Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

Let's say I start driving one day from Fargo, ND and take random left and right turns for 24 hrs. I wind up in Saint Cloud, MN. What are the odds that I would wind up in St. Cloud, by taking random turns? Does that mean it did not happen?

 

[bhsmte]

Let's say I start driving one day from Fargo, ND and take random left and right turns for 24 hrs. I wind up in Saint Cloud, MN. What are the odds that I would wind up in St. Cloud, by taking random turns? Does that mean it did not happen?

I guess that means all the lotto winners really didn't win, because the odds were so much against them.

 

[selfinflikted]

It is very common for creationists to dismiss evolution because they cannot imagine how it can happen. It has nothing to due with actually calculating odds.

And it has nothing to do with whether evolution actually happens, either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

The odds of something happening that has already happened is 1 in 1, because it happened.

Using your failed logic, there should only be a winner in 1 in every 150 million Powerball drawings. In real life, people win the Powerball all of the time.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Let's cut this log of bologna up and address it a slice at a time.

First a little bit of history on Evolution:

Evolution was a mystical belief system and a Creation story long before it could be claimed to be anything like a scientific theory.

Ancient Greek societies believed in all types of Evolution. They believed the universe arose spontaneously, that life spontaneously generated in the oceans, that the first life was small sea creatures which eventually crawled onto land and developed into more advanced forms.

Much later, influential men would come along and resurrect these belief systems. Before Charles Darwin was even born, his grandfather Erasmus was writing poetry about his mystical beliefs in all forms of Evolution.

Observe a few verses from Erasums Darwin's poems. We have the whole Evolution creation story in here. Spontaneous generation of the universe, spontaneous generation of life from non-life, and organic evolution.

Temple of Nature
Erasmus Darwin - 1803

Impress'd on Nature by the Great First Cause,
Say, Muse! how rose from elemental strife
Organic forms, and kindled into life;
.....
Ere Time began, from flaming Chaos hurl'd
Rose the bright spheres, which form the circling world;
Earths from each sun with quick explosions burst,
And second planets issued from the first.
Then, whilst the sea at their coeval birth,
Surge over surge, involv'd the shoreless earth;
Nurs'd by warm sun-beams in primeval caves
Organic Life began beneath the waves.
....
Hence without parent by spontaneous birth
Rise the first specks of animated earth;
From Nature's womb the plant or insect swims,
And buds or breathes, with microscopic limbs.
....
"Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.

As we can see, Evolution was a passionate origins belief system well before Charlie began dressing it up in a scientific garb... and the same goes for the "theories" of Big-Bang cosmology and Abiogenesis... Do you think it's just a coincidence that these creation ideas became established dogma decades or centuries after they has been devoutly expressed by those in an early position of power?

Erasmus Darwin, and his ideological successors like Thomas Huxley were part of "learned societies" (Lunar Society, X Club) that held a great deal of influence over the emerging scientific establishments of the 18th and 19th centuries. These societies were built on a commitment to "naturalism" or an Evolutionary worldview.

Put simply, the emergence of Evolutionary thought was not driven by scientific inquiry or scientific evidence. Evolution was going to become the official creation doctrine of the institutions of "science", no matter what.

From: Atomic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophical atomism
Main article: Atomism
The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old one, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The principle ancient Greek atomists included Leucippus, Democritus. Ancient Indian atomists included Ajivika and Carvaka Jains. The relationship between Greek and Indian atomism, whether they were arrived at independently or influenced each other, is a matter of debate. However, these ideas were founded in philosophical and theological reasoning rather than evidence and experimentation. As a result, their views on what atoms look like and how they behave were very incorrect. They also couldn't convince everybody, so atomism was but one of a number of competing theories on the nature of matter. It wasn't until the 19th century that the idea was embraced and refined by scientists, as the blossoming science of chemistry produced discoveries that only the concept of atoms could explain.

The fact that the original idea concerning atomic theory was a philosophical notion has no bearing on the validity of atomic theory. Why should it have any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution?

A great many early chemists had as their goal the idea of turning base metals into gold....IOW greed. However, you would not say the entire field of chemistry is invalidated by the motivations of the early supporters. Why do you think the validity of the theory of evolution is invalidated by the motivations of its early supporters?

We have revealed the entire first section of lifepsyop's, or whoever he may have copied it from, objection to evolution to be mere unevidenced emotional appeal. Now we can move on to his other assertions.