The Demise of Evolution

[Tinker Grey]

That's right. I'm pretty sure I read of its imminent demise in the 1980s, then the 1990s, the turn of the millenium, the first decade of the new century. It's end was just around the corner. And yet here it is, with several tens of thousands of further papers validating and explaining more and more aspects of it and the number of deniers steadily falling, while their withered arguments continue to tumble in the wind. When the last of them is gone I may have to get a proper hobby!

Perhaps it'll take as long as the 2nd coming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched the debate and I didn't see anything of what you are describing. Both put their views plainly and one didn't
"defeat" the other in any question that was asked.

Then you were not paying attention or you did not understand the debate. Even the mass majority of Christians realized when Ham showed that he could not reason logically and rationally. This video has the clip, start it at 4:50. Listen to Ham and then listen to Nye. This was the question where Ham admitted in so many words that he did not understand science, reason, or logic:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps it'll take as long as the 2nd coming.

OOh, so tempting, so tempting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That the world and everything in it shows intricate design which could never have happened by time and chance.

At best there is only an appearance of design. The problem is that when one investigates life more deeply then it also becomes apparent that if there was a designer that he was an incompetent designer.

The "life is designed" argument is also a blasphemous one since it is equivalent to calling God incompetent. There are many traits that could have been designed much much better. Evolution does not work on "perfect" evolution works on "good enough" and sometime the compromises that are forced upon it by its nature are the cause of extinction of various species. But let's not anthropomorphize evolution. It is simply a description of what happened and why. Just as gravity is a force that explains the motion of the planets, evolution is a 'force' that explains why life is as we see it today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I must have a look at that one to see for myself!
I have watched a whole lot of videos on AiG, and they make a lot of sense to me, and I have two of Ken Ham's books, which provide much good evidence for creation.

But I will watch the debate and will come back to you with my comment. Oh, just to assure you, I am not some 14 year old wet behind the ears. I am an old warrior having had many debates on this forum over the years, and no evolutionist has yet been able to prove their case with me.

So, I hope your are better than your predecessors.

I am sorry, but a "warrior" does not base one's arguments on proven bogus sources. To even work at AiG one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That makes their arguments fail almost every time. They do not base their arguments on science but on emotion and religious beliefs.

You demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science again and again. Ken Ham can not properly define what science is or how it is done. One goes to scientists for that. And it is rather odd that I offered to discuss these concepts without bringing evolution into it and yet you continue to run away. A person that believes one's claims does not run away.

 

[MIDutch]

You can't say it's foolish because that requires logical thinking from a mind that has been designed and cannot be the product of time and chance. If you believe you are a product of evolution then your brain is just a collection of molecules and incapable of logic. Logic can only come from a brain that has been designed to think logically, and therefore has to be the product of a greater logical mind.

So, no cigar this time.

You seem to think that only humans can think logically. And even worse, that only humans have brains.

 

[MIDutch]

I have gone over the basics of evolution by reading the book "Evolution" by Ken Ham. He explains it very well and to my satisfaction.

Odd that you get your "information" from someone who has NO qualifications in the subject, as opposed to the THOUSANDS of books and articles written about it by actual scientists (you know, the people who do actual research in the subject).

What a surprise.

Wait. Are you a Poe?

 

[Ophiolite]

I have gone over the basics of evolution by reading the book "Evolution" by Ken Ham. He explains it very well and to my satisfaction.

I know enough about science that everything that we can observe in the world around us and the cosmos cannot have be created out of nothing, so it doesn't matter how many billions of years pass by, chance cannot produce anything out of absolutely nothing. The big bang could not have happened out of nothing either, because there needs to be combustible materials and someone to light the fuse.

Science also tells us that an explosion causes destruction and chaos, not construction and order. So, a big bang producing an orderly universe is not scientific. Also science tells us that the extreme heat produced by such a large explosion would render everything totally sterile, so life cannot happen out of sterility. Life has to happen from life, and it cannot happen from a sterile universe.

Actually, because you have a mind capable of logical thought, you contradict evolution, because a bag of molecules produced by time and chance cannot have logical thought.

Opinions expressed on the basis of ignorance and imagined realities are of less value than a small rodent in a chess Olympiad.
Just so you don't continue to make the same mistake: the universe is not said to have come form nothing; the Big Bang was not an explosion, no r did it involve combustion; etc.
0/10

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you actually going with the idea that you're a brain in a jar and just think you're experiencing a non-brain-in-a-jar life?

Is THAT your argument against evolution?

You avoided my question. It's not about what I believe, but what you believe. The question is about self-consciousness. If we are just a bag of molecules, where does self-consciousness come from?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Two points:

• We are put together by time, chance, natural selection and environment. Those are two additional, powerful, relevant "forces".
• You seem quite unaware of emergent properties. I suggest you investigate the concept then you will be less likely to make empty remarks.

Based upon the content of your posts the evidence points strongly towards the absence of logic in our minds. Fortunately, a single instance from seven and a half billion is not a convincing demonstration.

We don't know and we probably cannot know. However, if we adopt a pragmatic approach, assuming that we are here and that this is real, we find that things proceed pretty much as we would expect if we were here. That experience, seemingly duplicated by billions of people, strongly suggests our initial assumption was valid. Nevertheless, it remains unproven, and we should remain alert for contrary evidence. I do. Do you?

I don't. Surely that is obvious? I do know that if we use the scientific method then we can validate the answers multiple times, in various ways, making it increasingly unlikely the answers are wrong - or, thereby invalidating them and acquiring new answers that stand up to repeated testing.

Of course we don't know all the right questions. Surely that is obvious? Each new validated answer generates more new questions. That is the beauty and inspiration of science.

The logical mind is a product of time and chance and natural selection and environment. Unfortunately, most humans do not have a logical mind and those who do, do not have it fully engaged all the time. Fortunately, the scientific method overcomes these limitations, imposing structure, logic and order upon our investigations.

See above.

Natural selection can easily be explained through the genetic changes produced by environmental conditions, for example, long haired dogs were the ones that survived in northern colder climates so the short haired dogs either died out or migrated to warmer climates. But the genetic changes happened without the same kind of organism, and there is no evidence that one type of organism changed into another type with a different genetic code. Also, a lower organism could not change to a higher organism because that would mean adding genetic material, and genetics proves that genetic material is lost not added. This is how long haired dogs are more numerous in cold climates, because the short hair gene is lost when two long hair gene dogs mate and produce offspring which has to be long hair and not short hair. This is why apes could never become human, because human genes can't be added to apes. There may be different kinds of apes, depending on what genetic material is retained or lost, but an ape will remain an ape and nothing else.

The logical mind is not something material that can be part of a material brain. The logical mind uses the brain and transmits its thoughts through the brain, but if we took a brain apart, we would not be able to find it. It is the same with self-consciousness. A chimp, which is the closest to humans genetically, does not have a logical mind, nor does it have self-consciousness, and it cannot communicate with a logical language as we can. But its brain shares many characteristics, and so it could have a logical mind and self-consciousness which its brain could process, but it doesn't. It is interesting that with all the genetic changes in humans, as far back as the ancient Egyptians, all have the same logical mind and self-consciousness - in fact, if the ancient Egyptians who existed 4000 years ago had the knowledge that we have today, they would have been able to build a rocket ship and gone to the moon. So man's intelligence has not evolved at all, it has just received better knowledge. You would think that man would be at a high level of intelligence and be able to process knowledge better than people who lived 4000 years ago, but such is not the case.

You acknowledge that you can't answer many questions about how we got our logical mind and self-consciousness, but there is a book, a unique book that clearly sets out historically how all these things happened.

The thing is, if you can answer the questions, you have to resort to what you believe took place, so therefore much of evolution comes from a belief system, rather than through actual science which demands proof through the scientific method of direct observation, replication, and testing before even a basic hypothesis can be arrived at.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Then you were not paying attention or you did not understand the debate. Even the mass majority of Christians realized when Ham showed that he could not reason logically and rationally. This video has the clip, start it at 4:50. Listen to Ham and then listen to Nye. This was the question where Ham admitted in so many words that he did not understand science, reason, or logic:

They both agreed that many questions about origins cannot be shown by science, and so evolution and creationism are both belief systems, because science can only prove what can be observed, replicated, and tested through the scientific method, and origin cannot be proved through it. Therefore it becomes a matter of what people believe happened. To say that evolution is a fact proved by science is a lie, because there is no science that can prove it, because no scientist was present at the time to observe what happened, and so not even a hypothesis through the scientific method can be reached, let alone a substantive scientific fact.

Therefore, both men, to be honest, would have to say that they cannot understand about origins, and have to resort to what they both believe happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They both agreed that many questions about origins cannot be shown by science, and so evolution and creationism are both belief systems, because science can only prove what can be observed, replicated, and tested through the scientific method, and origin cannot be proved through it. Therefore it becomes a matter of what people believe happened. To say that evolution is a fact proved by science is a lie, because there is no science that can prove it, because no scientist was present at the time to observe what happened, and so not even a hypothesis through the scientific method can be reached, let alone a substantive scientific fact.

Therefore, both men, to be honest, would have to say that they cannot understand about origins, and have to resort to what they both believe happened.

I doubt if Nye said that. Odds are that you are misinterpreting him. Accepting evolution is not a "belief system". It is observable, testable, and confirmable. Creationism is none of those.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You avoided my question. It's not about what I believe, but what you believe. The question is about self-consciousness. If we are just a bag of molecules, where does self-consciousness come from?

Improperly asked questions do not merit an answer. And you are incorrect, it is not about what we believe but about what we know. We know that we are the product of evolution. You only have mere belief. Knowledge trumps belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you are saying is what you believe, because evolution is not a science - it is a belief system. We can use science to show how things work, and the nature of the world around us, but evolution scientists have to fill in the many gaps about the origin of them through what they believe, and this moves from science to belief.

Wrong again, and a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Just because you do not understand something it is improper to claim that others do not understand something.

This is why I offered to go over the scientific method with you. A concept that you do not understand since you got yours from a bogus source.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a simplified flow chart for the scientific method:

Do you have any problem with this?

 

[Larniavc]

If we are just a bag of molecules, where does self-consciousness come from?

Consciousness seems to be an inevitable emergent property of a sufficiently complex nervous system.

 

[pitabread]

All you are saying is what you believe, because evolution is not a science - it is a belief system

This is what creationists keep telling themselves, but unfortunately for them, that's not the reality.

Evolution is a legit science to the point that it even has real-world applications (yes, even common descent has real-world applications). Of course, creationists often deny this as well because the idea of a evolution being "a belief system" and evolution having real-world application causes too much cognitive dissonance.

Hence creationists are forced into a never-ending spiral of reality-denial.

 

[Larniavc]

but evolution scientists have to fill in the many gaps about the origin of them through what they believe,

Which gaps are you specifically referring to?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I am sorry, but a "warrior" does not base one's arguments on proven bogus sources. To even work at AiG one must swear not to follow the scientific method. That makes their arguments fail almost every time. They do not base their arguments on science but on emotion and religious beliefs.

You demonstrated that you do not understand the basics of science again and again. Ken Ham can not properly define what science is or how it is done. One goes to scientists for that. And it is rather odd that I offered to discuss these concepts without bringing evolution into it and yet you continue to run away. A person that believes one's claims does not run away.

But I know that you cannot provide answers - only what you believe to be true - and this will be no better than what I believe, except that I have historical material that is more straightforward and believable than your set of beliefs on which you base your faith. So there is nothing you can add that is superior. All you will be able to do is to try and attempt to convert me to your belief system in the same way a Mormon or JW will try, and none of them have got anywhere with me, so the chances that you will are very slim indeed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which gaps are you specifically referring to?

Perhaps the gaps in his knowledge. Far too many creationists appear to reason based upon "If I do not understand it it is not right".