The Evolution Fraud - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Pollution, global warming, urbanisation etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028238
Sivad wrote:I don't really have any strong priors either way in any area relevant here. I think a naturalistic explanation is totally possible. It wouldn't conflict with my worldview or anything, I'm completely open to it. Just show me the money and I'm sold.


What I'm asking is, which beliefs are we supposed to be weighing against the evidence here? Is it abiogenesis + Darwinism vs Intelligent Design or something else?

Also, what do you consider to be a "naturalistic" explanation? Personally, I find it to be a vague term, and i would accept supernatural explanations of phenomena provided that they could actually be understood.
By Hindsite
#15028239
Saeko wrote:I understand what evidence I should have and I have it. What I'm trying to figure out is what evidence you think you should have. Please answer that question I asked you in my previous post, if you're at all interested in having this conversation.

I am not really interested in having this conversation, because I am already sure you have nothing important to add. However, you can continue to try to bullshit the others if you wish.
User avatar
By Saeko
#15028243
Hindsite wrote:I am not really interested in having this conversation, because I am already sure you have nothing important to add. However, you can continue to try to bullshit the others if you wish.


I was hoping you'd say that. At first, I was too scared to go up against your immense wit and unshakable faith. But now I have nothing to worry about and can spread Satan's lies and distortions unimpeded. Thank you! :D
By Sivad
#15028249
Saeko wrote:What I'm asking is, which beliefs are we supposed to be weighing against the evidence here? Is it abiogenesis + Darwinism vs Intelligent Design or something else?


How about Darwinism vs honest doubt.



Also, what do you consider to be a "naturalistic" explanation? Personally, I find it to be a vague term, and i would accept supernatural explanations of phenomena provided that they could actually be understood.


I guess I would define "natural" in this context as anything that comes about by blind mechanisms and/or non-teleological forces.
By Sivad
#15028251
Saeko wrote:I understand what evidence I should have and I have it.


I doubt that, I think you only have good evidence for common descent and some kind of evolutionary process but you definitely do not have good evidence for the neo-darwinian model. You have good evidence that random mutation and natural selection play some unquantifiable role in that process but you have zero evidence that they can account for the complexity and diversity of biological life, that's just an article of faith for you.
#15028259
Godstud wrote:Inspired does not mean accurate.

That applies to science too.

Godstud wrote::roll: They don't NEED to! They aren't trying to explain how things started, just how things work.

Well... maybe Darwin shouldn't have titled his book "The Origin of Species" then, because the word "origin" sounds like "how things started." Then again, that might be just my way of looking at it. :roll:

The reality, Godstud, is that Darwin's theory is good for describing variation within species, but not with describing the origin of any species. In other words, Darwin does a good job of describing the difference between a Rottweiler and a poodle, but not the difference between a dog and a fish or a banana.

Godstud wrote:You want to make it seem as though he only created earth, when there's a whole universe to explain.

In biblical times, people didn't have telescopes. Yet, you hit on something more interesting--a need to explain. A lot of the scientific community pushes a narrative--an explanation, rather than dispassionate science. Much of it is told in a story--not unlike Genesis--and demands that you accept it as gospel truth lest you be called an idiot (the scienific equivalent of "infidel", "pagan", etc.).

Besoeker2 wrote:The existence of your god isn't a known fact. It is a belief.

So is 1, 2, 3, ... Science depends on math, but math is not physical. 1 doesn't actually exist. It's a concept, like Fred Flintstone. n = n + 1, Peano's axiom, cannot be proven or disproven either. Kurt Godel did a number on Whitehead and Russell.

Besoeker2 wrote:But, more than 99 percent of all species, amounting to over five billion species, that ever lived on Earth are estimated to have died out.
Did your god screw up big time if five billion of his species couldn't survive in the world he himself supposedly created?

Why can't a God do something like that? The same sort of pattern happens with software programs. Think of how many text editors have been created and are now defunct. Did all those programmers screw up big time? No. Reading the bible as though it were a scientific text misses the point.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15028266
Sivad wrote:blind mechanisms

The process is blind but reproductive success acts as a very effective mechanism for directing evolutionary responses to stimuli from the environment.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028267
blackjack21 wrote:
So is 1, 2, 3, ... Science depends on math, but math is not physical. 1 doesn't actually exist.


I can prove things with maths. The assumed existence of your doesn't prove anything.


blackjack21 wrote:Why can't a God do something like that?

More to the point, why would god do something like that?
There is a very simple explanation - but you won't even consider it.
#15028335
Besoeker2 wrote:I can prove things with maths.

Nevertheless, math is not physical. So you are using something for which there is no physical evidence to establish proofs for physical phenomena. You can believe in 1, 2, 3, +, -, =, etc. just like some may choose to believe in a flying spaghetti monster. Yet, numbers do not exist in physical space and time. They are merely non-physical/metaphysical concepts. You are every bit as comfortable embracing non-physical concepts as any religious devotee. So why not vary between belief and disbelief and try to understand metaphors other people use to explain phenomena instead of insisting that your non-physical concepts are actually real, like the square root of -1 for example?

Besoeker2 wrote:More to the point, why would god do something like that?

Presumably a god may do what it likes. Why do you think a god would be non-arbitrary? In physics, Newton/Einsteinian folks believed in inherent order whereas the quantum folks showed randomness and uncertainty were also factors. Does God play dice? Quantum mechanics would suggest he does; yet, that is very unsatisfying to the Newton/Einsteinian folks. Nature suggests nuture is a factor in advanced life forms; yet, it doesn't prevent that advanced life form from being killed by a competitor or some other event like a meteorite. If God is behind the meteorite and you, why do you think such a God owes you the courtesy of protection from the meteorite or the hungry tiger?

In decades of software engineering, I've seen people invent special purpose programming languages where general purpose languages would suffice. I've seen basic apps built and later discarded and new apps with the same behavior as the old ones re-created with different languages or different platforms. Criticisms of capitalism, human behavior and Gods follow the same general idea that one person's ideal is somehow violated by waste, arbitrariness, inefficiency, caprice, and so forth. I find atheists tedious in that they cannot accept even the concept of a God as a container for ideas, behaviors, unknowns, etc. that need further explanation. Dawkins' answer for intelligent design is simply to not ask questions--that is, get to a point where you have a reasonable theory for things and then stop asking anymore questions. Yet, along comes Behe, Berlinski and others and shows that mutation and natural selection alone are insufficient for the origin of species.

There's an abiogenic theory for crude oil as well. Life depends on some pretty advanced compounds like DNA and RNA. Yet, some people insist that mass quantities of far lesser compounds like crude oil can only exist by virtue of previous life which itself depends on substantially more complex molecules than sugars. Nucleotides, RNA, DNA, etc. are understood chemically. What's not understood is why a chemical reaction seeks to sustain itself. Why do you bother to eat? Why do you want to live? Why reproduce?

Darwin doesn't really ask these questions. Dawkins suggests that selfishness is the answer, and then ceases to ask further questions. What physical properties underpin selfishness then? Isn't that a question worth asking?
By Hindsite
#15028414
ingliz wrote:The process is blind but reproductive success acts as a very effective mechanism for directing evolutionary responses to stimuli from the environment.

The reproduction process is directed by DNA programming by God with very little stimuli from the environment. Any environmental influence is more correctly called adaptation to the environment, not evolution.

Actually, what most people refer to as evolution is really devolution from a higher to lower form due to DNA copying mistakes during the reproduction process. An accumulation of these copying mistakes results in eventual degenerative disease and death. Evolution from a lower to higher more advanced form has never been witnessed because it does not occur in nature.
#15028556
Besoeker2 wrote:Yes, a presumption with no sound evidence.

I just gave you examples of two schools of thought--Einstein/Newton/Spinoza's rational God versus randomness, which seems to have a great deal of appeal to atheists. Yet, even those proponents of undecidability and uncertainty were also theists. Kurt Gödel was a theist, as was Werner Heisenberg (a member of the Evangelische Kirche, who also raised his children in a religious tradition). Niels Bohr was an atheist. A lot of the appeal to atheism is due to anger towards the conception of a god that is compassionate and mothering and thereby not saving you from the vicissitudes of life followed by death--as though you were owed a life without pain, struggles, and immortality. Christopher Hitchens used to rail against this sort of theology, and while I have no issue of people rejecting it as such, I find the idea of compelling people to reject it rather unnecessarily contentious. Generally, people rejecting one belief will want to replace it with something else, and they are less than likely to choose atheism as a belief system; yet, many are inclined to choose some form of socialism as a political preference due to the desire for a mommy-god that will love and take care of them forever and ever.

Yet, most people will find the idea of life simply spontaneously arising and then marching steadily onward to ever more sophisticated life forms out of some sort of undefined, unexplained selfishness that is molded and shaped by random environmental factors causing mutation and to be allocated success or failure as a consequence of natural selection rather unsatisfying--especially in view of the rather profound failure to explain the origin of life.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028596
blackjack21 wrote:I just gave you examples of two schools of thought--Einstein/Newton/Spinoza's rational God versus randomness, which seems to have a great deal of appeal to atheists.

It isn't a question of appeal. An omnipotent either god exists or doesn't. There is no rational basis/evidence for a belief in an omnipotent entity and much to counter it.
#15028615
Besoaker2 wrote:It isn't a question of appeal. An omnipotent either god exists or doesn't. There is no rational basis/evidence for a belief in an omnipotent entity and much to counter it.

I didn't qualify anything as omnipotent. What is your evidence to counter it?
#15028631
Besoeker2 wrote:To counter what?

You used the pronoun. You tell me.

Besoeker2 wrote:There is no rational basis/evidence for a belief in an omnipotent entity and much to counter it.

The it in the above sentence.
By Hindsite
#15028635
Besoeker2 wrote:To counter what?

The Creator.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

https://www.icr.org/home/resources/reso ... evolution/
Last edited by Hindsite on 22 Aug 2019 19:57, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
By Besoeker2
#15028640
blackjack21 wrote:You used the pronoun. You tell me.


The it in the above sentence.

The sentence makes it clear what the "it" refers to.
The omnipotent entity.
Do you think there is one?
That's just yes or no.
#15028641
I'm with Heisenberg. I remain uncertain. I'm with Godel. I'm undecided.
  • 1
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 17
Macron: Nato is brain-dead

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even […]

Trump and Russiagate

I noticed :roll: :lol: https://paulrever[…]

No. it was all done on purpose Netanyahu can ask […]

Ukrainegate

Trump has divided the nation, and as every day go[…]