Big Contradictions?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And like I said, things are waaay too perfect to have occurred accidently.

Is this another joke?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where's yer sense of humor.

And like I said, things are waaay too perfect to have occurred accidently.

I hope you do realize that only creationists misunderstand the theory of evolution so badly to think that is says that life evolved accidentally. Of course if you did your post would still make no sense.

 

[Speedwell]

Where's yer sense of humor.

And like I said, things are waaay too perfect to have occurred accidently.

I'm not sure of what you mean by "accidentally." Iterative processes like random variation and selection are highly orderly and can be modeled mathematically. They are used in manufacturing and electronic circuit design with results that no one would call "accidental."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I hope you do realize that only creationists misunderstand the theory of evolution so badly to think that is says that life evolved accidentally. Of course if you did your post would still make no sense.

I find it odd that evolution doesn't claim for itself the creation of life, only the subsequent changes. I don't see how these events can be separated. Creation(ism) has no problem with this.

 

[Speedwell]

I find it odd that evolution doesn't claim for itself the creation of life, only the subsequent changes. I don't see how these events can be separated. Creation(ism) has no problem with this.

That's like saying that you can't learn how to drive a car until you can build one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it odd that evolution doesn't claim for itself the creation of life, only the subsequent changes. I don't see how these events can be separated. Creation(ism) has no problem with this.

Scientists answer the questions that they can answer first. Evolution was a fairly easy problem to solve. Abiogenesis is much more complicated. Easier questions are answered first. The Wright brothers did not prove that flight was possible by building a Boeing 747.

And creationism has a huge problem. All of their claims have been refuted.

 

[Speedwell]

Scientists answer the questions that they can answer first. Evolution was a fairly easy problem to solve. Abiogenesis is much more complicated. Easier questions are answered first. The Wright brothers did not prove that flight was possible by building a Boeing 747.

And creationism has a huge problem. All of their claims have been refuted.

But it is possible to understand OWG's position, I think. He sees the theory of evolution as nothing but a lie concocted to destroy creationism, and wonders that it does not cover the same phenomenological ground as creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But it is possible to understand OWG's position, I think. He sees the theory of evolution as nothing but a lie concocted to destroy creationism, and wonders that it does not cover the same phenomenological ground as creationism.

OWG has been here quite a while and surely knew the answer to that question. A recent creationist might have a valid question there, though the assumption at the end is wrong, we know that life is the product of evolution. This has been explained to OWG countless times and he won't let himself understand.

 

[And-U-Say]

I find it odd that evolution doesn't claim for itself the creation of life, only the subsequent changes. I don't see how these events can be separated. Creation(ism) has no problem with this.

Incredibly uninformed comment. Oh, its OldWiseGuy. Explains a lot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OWG has been here quite a while and surely knew the answer to that question. A recent creationist might have a valid question there, though the assumption at the end is wrong, we know that life is the product of evolution. This has been explained to OWG countless times and he won't let himself understand.

It's not that I won't let myself understand evolution; I can't understand evolution anymore than I can understand creation. That leaves only acceptance, or belief, in one or the other for me. And creation just makes more sense to me. There's actually less mystery, for me anyway.

 

[bhsmte]

I find it odd that evolution doesn't claim for itself the creation of life, only the subsequent changes. I don't see how these events can be separated. Creation(ism) has no problem with this.

Think on it a little bit.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not that I won't let myself understand evolution; I can't understand evolution anymore than I can understand creation.

Why can't you understand the theory of evolution?

Do you also reject the Germ Theory of Disease because it can't explain where the first germs came from? Are you incapable of understanding how germs cause disease in the same way you are incapable of understanding creation?

That leaves only acceptance, or belief, in one or the other for me. And creation just makes more sense to me. There's actually less mystery, for me anyway.

Surely you can understand that reality does not have to conform to your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not that I won't let myself understand evolution; I can't understand evolution anymore than I can understand creation. That leaves only acceptance, or belief, in one or the other for me. And creation just makes more sense to me. There's actually less mystery, for me anyway.

Even if you can't understand the theory of evolution, and it seems that it is only your will that keeps you from understanding it, others clearly do. Not understanding something is never an excuse to go back to an old refuted idea. One may not understand how a gun works, but it would be the height of foolishness to look down the barrel and to pull the trigger. When you do not understand something is the time to rely on those that do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Even if you can't understand the theory of evolution, and it seems that it is only your will that keeps you from understanding it, others clearly do. Not understanding something is never an excuse to go back to an old refuted idea. One may not understand how a gun works, but it would be the height of foolishness to look down the barrel and to pull the trigger. When you do not understand something is the time to rely on those that do.

We all rely on the knowledge and understanding of others in many areas. We can't all 'clearly' understand everything. Regarding evolution, I have read many articles about it, and in every case I am satisfied that it is indeed beyond my understanding (I only have an IQ of 135, so I'm a bit short in the brain department).

 

[Subduction Zone]

We all rely on the knowledge and understanding of others in many areas. We can't all 'clearly' understand everything. Regarding evolution, I have read many articles about it, and in every case I am satisfied that it is indeed beyond my understanding (I only have an IQ of 135, so I'm a bit short in the brain department).

If you truly have an IQ of 135 you are not short in the brain department, though many IQ tests leave quite a bit to be desired. An IQ of 100 is supposed to be average, yet you never hear of people claiming to have an IQ of 95, a more than normal IQ. Many people suffer from cognitive dissonance. A self imposed inability to understand something that threatens a cherished, but false, belief. That is than more likely the reason that you cannot understand the theory of evolution.

Perhaps if we start with the simple concept of scientific evidence first you can improve upon your ability to understand. We don't even need to use the "e" word.

 

[juvenissun]

Are There Any Big Contradictions In The Evolutionary Theory?*

YES.

 

[Subduction Zone]

YES.

And yet you can't name any.

 

[Gene2memE]

If you truly have an IQ of 135 you are not short in the brain department, though many IQ tests leave quite a bit to be desired. An IQ of 100 is supposed to be average, yet you never hear of people claiming to have an IQ of 95, a more than normal IQ.

Quoting for accuracy and expanding upon this.

An IQ of 135 would put you better than 2 standard deviations above normal, regardless of the IQ test in question. An IQ of 135 means that you tested in the top 2.5% to 0.5% of the population, depending on what test you took.

That said, most IQ tests tend to have a slight bias towards crystallised rather than fluid intelligence.

Don't put too much faith in IQ tests though. Individuals can vary by better than 35 points between the same type of IQ tests, on the same day. Having done undergrad psychology, I've seen second and third year university students consistently do 10-15 points better between one week and the next, thanks to various substances, including caffeine, tobacco, minty chewing gum and toothpaste.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Quoting for accuracy and expanding upon this.

An IQ of 135 would put you better than 2 standard deviations above normal, regardless of the IQ test in question. An IQ of 135 means that you tested in the top 2.5% to 0.5% of the population, depending on what test you took.

That said, most IQ tests tend to have a slight bias towards crystallised rather than fluid intelligence.

Don't put too much faith in IQ tests though. Individuals can vary by better than 35 points between the same type of IQ tests, on the same day. Having done undergrad psychology, I've seen second and third year university students consistently do 10-15 points better between one week and the next, thanks to various substances, including caffeine, tobacco, minty chewing gum and toothpaste.

True that such tests are a 'snapshot in time'.

I have only taken two IQ tests, one when I was about 22, the other a few years ago. Both scores were identical, 135. My conclusion is that while I haven't gained any brain power over the years I haven't lost any either, although there might have been up or downs over the period.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not that I won't let myself understand evolution; I can't understand evolution anymore than I can understand creation.

I sometimes think that some people find it hard to understand evolution because the principle underlying it is so simple, and they're expecting something complicated.