What are the Weaknesses of Evolution?

[Skaloop]

And NEITHER can you! So once again it comes down to the difference of faith.

What? We can, and have, explained the nested hierarchy, pseudogenes, and human chromosome 2 using evolution. We've done so in this very thread even! And our explanations don't involve any real faith.

 

[Inan3]

What? We can, and have, explained the nested hierarchy, pseudogenes, and human chromosome 2 using evolution. We've done so in this very thread even! And our explanations don't involve any real faith.

Yeah Yeah Yeah I know you have explained the findings but what I am saying is that it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusions or convince me of the conclusions.

And did you WANT me to be able to explain these? I have done what you have done and read the results of these. I haven't memorized them so that I could really explain them back to you but I don't think you wanted that. Weren't you saying that I haven't EXPLAINED my conclutions of these findings? I could have an "idea" (just as scientists do) or I could also, surmise, (as scientists do) but will that change your mind? Of course not. That is not what you want. What you want is fodder to prey upon. I don't begrudge you that, I like the idea of a good joust myself. But you KNOW my conclusions. I agree that there is evidence of evolution BUT I DO NOT agree that this is evidence that creation did not take place. No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer. I don't even think you could be satisfied to say "Okay there are people out there who don't agree with us, and even though they are wrong (from your viewpoint) I can accept it." I don't think you can accept this. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I said all that to say this. I'm no even going to try to explain.

 

[FishFace]

Yeah Yeah Yeah I know you have explained the findings but what I am saying is that it doesn't EXPLAIN the conclusions or convince me of the conclusions.

And did you WANT me to be able to explain these? I have done what you have done and read the results of these. I haven't memorized them so that I could really explain them back to you but I don't think you wanted that. Weren't you saying that I haven't EXPLAINED my conclutions of these findings? I could have an "idea" (just as scientists do) or I could also, surmise, (as scientists do) but will that change your mind? Of course not. That is not what you want. What you want is fodder to prey upon. I don't begrudge you that, I like the idea of a good joust myself. But you KNOW my conclusions. I agree that there is evidence of evolution BUT I DO NOT agree that this is evidence that creation did not take place. No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer. I don't even think you could be satisfied to say "Okay there are people out there who don't agree with us, and even though they are wrong (from your viewpoint) I can accept it." I don't think you can accept this. I could be wrong but it seems that way to me. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I said all that to say this. I'm no even going to try to explain.

I can accept people who don't believe in evolution. I am also quite happy to tell them or other people that they are wrong. I take issue with them only when they come on a debate forum - in which case, they clearly want to have a debate - or when they try to push their false beliefs on others.
I could change my mind - but only if someone showed me new, falsifying evidence. No-one has done that. Plenty of people have tried, but it always turns out that they either disproved a version of evolution that exists only in their imagination, or the findings were misinterpreted, or something like that. I have given you new information, new evidence - evidence which can only be explained by evolution, but you haven't reconsidered, it seems.

So. You haven't explained the evidence. You have said, as we already knew, that it's not proof of evolution, but, as we've told you, the orbits of the planets are not proof of gravity. The only good explanation, in either case, is the one science currently accepts. We know that evolution is a perfect explanation of these phenomena because, if we believe evolution, we can make valid predictions about future research. We predicted the patterns in human chromosome two and in pseudogenes, and the existence of Tiktaalik. We can tell that God is not an explanation, because belief in God could never make those predictions.

God is no more an explanation of pseudogenes than he is of planetary orbits. This does not disprove God in any way at all, but it does demonstrate evolution.

 

[TheOutsider]

No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer.

Hold on. My irony meter just exploded and I need to go get a new one.

 

[MoonLancer]

No matter what I say your mind is all made up and you will not be satisfied with my answer.

no, just show us a few things. What does the scientific theory of creation say, and how is Creation scientifically falsifiable or scientifically testable.

thats it. Its not that hard. so it does matter what you say, you just have been un willing to say it.

 

[Inan3]

no, just show us a few things. What does the scientific theory of creation say, and how is Creation scientifically falsifiable or scientifically testable.

thats it. Its not that hard. so it does matter what you say, you just have been un willing to say it.

MoonLancer .... IS there a scientific theory of creation? I didn't know. What is the most scientifically testable word on this post?

 

[Inan3]

Hold on. My irony meter just exploded and I need to go get a new one.

We'll wait for you, go ahead and get one.

 

[NailsII]

no, just show us a few things. What does the scientific theory of creation say, and how is Creation scientifically falsifiable or scientifically testable.

thats it. Its not that hard. so it does matter what you say, you just have been un willing to say it.

There is no scientific theory of creation in your sense, only glimpses of how biochemistry originates from non-organic compounds.
As we can only guess at what early earth conditions were like 3.5 - 4.5 billion years ago, we can only approximate what could have happened.
All the research I've seen on this so far suggests that the 'biogenesis' if you like of organic compounds is possible, complex chemicals are less stable and so this pinpoints the basic premise of life 'occuring' even by small, gradual steps relatively improbable.
But we do know it happened at least once, and that is all it takes.
If there is a million-to-one-chance of life starting by this method, then the right conditions and the right planet have happened as we estimate there over a billion stars in our galaxy - I know you can see where this is going.
Even if the odds against life are overwhelming, there are that many planets and that much time that it can happen - and has.
Biblical creation is easily dismissed as a fairy tale, all you have to do is re-read some of the previous posts detailing evidence for evolution.
It is there, it is real and it is testable.
no god of love would create us the way we are, with all our genetic and physical weaknesses, parasites and weak immune system.
If we are his chosen people, why can we not regrow limbs? or even teeth!! Other, #lesser# animals we supposedly rule over can, but not us.
open your mind a little, it isn't hard.

 

[Inan3]

I take issue with them only when they come on a debate forum - in which case, they clearly want to have a debate - or when they try to push their false beliefs on others.

(the point of a debate is to give opposing ideas - just ask TomK he's got lots of advise ) Also, don't take issue ... you should thank me because if I wasn't here who would you vent all your incredible knowledge on .... certainly not your "peers" they already know everything you know .... remember it's in the manual


I could change my mind - but only if someone showed me new, falsifying evidence. Have you been talking to Tommy? Oh I forgot...the manual again

No-one has done that. Plenty of people have tried, but it always turns out that they either disproved a version of evolution that exists only in their imagination, or the findings were misinterpreted, or something like that. I have given you new information, new evidence - evidence which can only be explained by evolution, but you haven't reconsidered reconsider what?, it seems.

We know that evolution is a perfect explanation of these phenomena because, if we believe evolution, we can make valid predictions about future research. (Do you really think this is an intelligent statement?)

God is no more an explanation of pseudogenes than he is of planetary orbits. You're right God is no more an explanation of pseudogenes than he is of planetary orbits.....He is their Creator.

Please note the words in blue above. Yes, I realize this way you can not post to my quotes.

 

[Inan3]

no god of love would create us the way we are, with all our genetic and physical weaknesses, parasites and weak immune system.

It's obvious you don't understand the Bible because God did NOT create us that way.

 

[NailsII]

It's obvious you don't understand the Bible because God did NOT created us that way.

Then i am afraid you have just shown the biggest weakness of your own arguement, because that is how we are.
We are genetically weak, much weaker than many other animals in many respects.
The only genetic advantage we have is our brains, and it would appear that many of us are adverse to use them.

 

[FishFace]

Please note the words in blue above. Yes, I realize this way you can not post to my quotes.

Yes, it's much more polite to divide a quotation and reply individually.

(the point of a debate is to give opposing ideas - just ask TomK he's got lots of advise ) Also, don't take issue ... you should thank me because if I wasn't here who would you vent all your incredible knowledge on .... certainly not your "peers" they already know everything you know .... remember it's in the manual

All the other creationists. I'm not going to thank anyone who turns up here, since they obviously want to be here and, if they didn't, they could leave.

Have you been talking to Tommy? Oh I forgot...the manual again

Manual? What? You've not made a proper response. If you can find evidence that falsifies evolution, such as a limit on the accumulation of mutation, or a static fossil record, or an organism that was a mixture of two unrelated lineages, then evolution would roll over and die - provided the evidence was of sufficient quantity.

reconsider what?

Your stance on evolution.

(Do you really think this is an intelligent statement?)

Yes. A large part of scientific method is that any theory should be able to make predictions. If a theory makes a prediction which we then test and find to be correct, that theory is strengthened. For example, if you have Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, you will be able to predict planetary orbits. You can then look at the orbits of the planets and see that it's correct.

Part of prediction is falsifiability - any good theory should also predict what we don't see. With the case of Newtonian Gravity, it predicts that we see nothing that deviates from F = G * m1 * m2 * r². As it happens when velocity approaches c, we see a deviation. As such, Newtonian Gravity is falsified.

If you try to forward a new explanation, if it is to be accepted, it must also pass these criteria. So you are trying to put forward God as an explanation of human chromosome 2. In many cases, it is possible to sort of "retroactively" apply predictions. Belief in God, even belief in a creator God, would never predict the patterns we see. Evolution actually did, and then the evidence was found.

All this makes evolution the better explanation.

You're right God is no more an explanation of pseudogenes than he is of planetary orbits.....He is their Creator

Now, I know you don't mean it like this, but this is essentially the theistic evolution view. God created the laws of physics, and set everything in motion. The planetary orbits arose out of the laws of physics, just like life and pseudogenes.

What you have been claiming is that, for some reason, God actually inserted pseudogenes into the genome. This is as ridiculous as saying God is pushing the planets around the sun.

 

[Tomk80]

(the point of a debate is to give opposing ideas - just ask TomK he's got lots of advise )

You are not a very nice person, are you Inan?

 

[LeeC]

Then i am afraid you have just shown the biggest weakness of your own arguement, because that is how we are.
We are genetically weak, much weaker than many other animals in many respects.
The only genetic advantage we have is our brains, and it would appear that many of us are adverse to use them.

Our brains also causes us problems… without our brains we could not have religion. The “religion virus” is hard to eradicate (impossible I would think). I’m reading Dan Dennett at the moment - Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, rather interesting.

Lee

 

[MoonLancer]

MoonLancer .... IS there a scientific theory of creation?

no idea. Something wants itself placed in schools as science though. Something wants itself placed were evolution now stands. If its not a scientific theory, then it has no right to be put in schools.

 

[LeeC]

no idea. Something wants itself placed in schools as science though. Something wants itself placed were evolution now stands. If its not a scientific theory, then it has no right to be put in schools.

I think they call it ID... "creation science" was rejected yeas ago because it included "God" in all the theories.

Now the clever people have replaced "God" with "Designer" and are trying again.

It's the same hymn sheet though.

Lee

 

[Tomk80]

I think they call it ID... "creation science" was rejected yeas ago because it included "God" in all the theories.

Now the clever people have replaced "God" with "Designer" and are trying again.

It's the same hymn sheet though.

Lee

Creationist organizations like AIG have used the term from the '70s onward if I am not mistaken to try and gain equal footing with current scientific theories. The reasoning being that if they could gain equal footing with those, creationism would be taught in science classes.

 

[Inan3]

You are not a very nice person, are you Inan?
[/COLOR]

I deserved that, Tom. I certainly was not being very nice and I apologize. I know there is no excuse but want you to know I was physically tired and mentally tired of answering the same questions and comments over and over and I really meant you no harm. I do try to be patient and non offensive but the last couple of days I just let go. Though a lot of it was in fun due to a feeling of giddiness brought on by being over tired, I realize that until one gets to really know someone coupled with communication limitations on a forum its hard for the person on the receiving end to interrpret that.

I really am a nice person with a sometimes sarcastic sense of humor. I mean you no true harm and I do respect your point of view whether I agree with it or not. Keep it coming.

Humbly,

Inan3

 

[NailsII]

Our brains also causes us problems… without our brains we could not have religion. The “religion virus” is hard to eradicate (impossible I would think). I’m reading Dan Dennett at the moment - Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, rather interesting.

Lee

I totally agree.
Religion is a natural progression from superstition, where urban myths become more prominant than wisdom.
i wish we as a species could evolve beyond it, but many of us appear to need a psychological crutch to guide us through life.
That I have no real problem with in principle, but to allow out-of-date teachings to gain more prominance than scientific wisdom is shocking and totally unacceptable.

 

[Tomk80]

I deserved that, Tom. I certainly was not being very nice and I apologize. I know there is no excuse but want you to know I was physically tired and mentally tired of answering the same questions and comments over and over and I really meant you no harm. I do try to be patient and non offensive but the last couple of days I just let go. Though a lot of it was in fun due to a feeling of giddiness brought on by being over tired, I realize that until one gets to really know someone coupled with communication limitations on a forum its hard for the person on the receiving end to interrpret that.

I really am a nice person with a sometimes sarcastic sense of humor. I mean you no true harm and I do respect your point of view whether I agree with it or not. Keep it coming.

Humbly,

Inan3

It's okay. We all make mistakes.