I would be happy to see it if you care to show the evidence but as this debate already clearly demonstrated, you don't have anything more than supposition based on your misguided intuition.
Evolution is Wrong...interesting video (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mike375
- Start date
I would be happy to see it if you care to show the evidence but as this debate already clearly demonstrated, you don't have anything more than supposition based on your misguided intuition.
The evidence is all around you. What is that saying, something along the lines of...there are none so blind as those who will not see...
I posted links (from science) that now show dromaeosaurids were not ancestors of birds but rather dromaeosaurids are flighltless birds and not even dinosaurs. Posted link to the Australian D Bryan Fry, world leader in venom and evolution of venom, whereby they have now shifted venom back to before the lizard and snake split.
The big transitions don't happen and don't need to happen. But of course this idea is anti the zealot atheist/evolutionist.
Get out and about and open your fucking eyes and mind
I debunked the notion that this meant Evolution was wrong. It was a minor adjustment in detail.
So?
Rubbish. Evolution says big changes are the result of accumulting small changes. Big transistions don't happen because the liklihood of a complete new stucture appearing in a single step and providing an advantage to the organism is vanishingly small. If you understood Evolution you would not make such a stupid claim.
You argue that Evolution is wrong because big transistions are impossible even though Evolution does not present that argument.
You are all over the place on Evolution as you aptly demonstrated with the wild swings in your position from, Evolution cannot account for big changes, to amphibians diverged from reptiles while the common ancestor was a microbe and ultimately that they diverged later but at a stage where they would not be recognised. You really haven't a clue.
Get out and about and open your fucking eyes and mind
You are the zealot with the closed mind, prefering your faith based beliefs to the vast body of scientific work because it conflicts with your what you assume has been given to you by your telepathic connection to "something out there".
You are as arrogant as the religious "prophets" who assumed they had special unquestionable knowledge through a connection to God (AKA "something out there"). You make it up as you go and your inability to intelligently present your presumptions in debate shows you are in fact quite deluded.
Anyone can have vague, rubbery notions about stuff like this but it doesn't constitute a theory nor deserve the slightest respect from science.
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:14
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,218
Sorry, Mike, categorically wrong - if you remember one little fact. "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." The big transitions are just the sum of thousands of small transitions. It is like a continuously varying curve rather than a sharp drop-off. So the big transitions happen. Just not all at once.
If this was actually your point, you communicated it so poorly that it got lost in the fog. In that case, you might consider studying the art of communicating with people.
Insane-ai - this is an excellent point. I will clarify in case you had forgotten or didn't know this. I am an atheist who used to be a Methodist. But I always get crazy when people categorically deny evolution. Doing so denies God's ability to have designed evolution to lead to us. Which puts a limit on God's powers. Therein lies yet one more reason why rabid theists drive me nuts. They won't play by their own rules. If God is omnipotent, then tell me why He couldn't have caused evolution to lead to us.
Your question very succinctly puts the proposition forward. While I am still atheist, I don't deny anyone's right to believe as they will. I just don't see why folks want to believe in an omnipotent God and then promptly make some silly statement that limits God's abilities.
Before Mike posts to say that we atheists are "all over the place" because "Galaxiom says big transistions don't happen" and "The_Doc_Man says they do", I would just like to point out that we actually said the same thing in different words that depend on the definition of "transition".
My point is that single large step transitions don't occur while The_Doc_Man includes multiple tiny steps in the definition of "transition".
I just know how Mike bases his whole arguments on semantics. He does this because his on topic contributions are so weak. Note that he has never once addressed any of the extensive arguments debunking his silly notions.
My point is that single large step transitions don't occur while The_Doc_Man includes multiple tiny steps in the definition of "transition".
I just know how Mike bases his whole arguments on semantics. He does this because his on topic contributions are so weak. Note that he has never once addressed any of the extensive arguments debunking his silly notions.
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:14
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
Galaxiom said:
Mike bases his thoughts on what he feels. He feels like something is out there, so he looks for what he considers evidence to back up his feelings. Since you cannot prove a negative, there is absolutely no way that anyone can convince him otherwise.
But, as The_Doc_Man eluded to, people should be able to believe what they want. If it makes Mike feel better thinking he has telepathy and that's what makes him a successful person, then so be it. It wouldn't stand up to scientific testing, I think we can all agree on that, and we may even see it as silly, but it doesn't really hurt anyone.
I don't have a problem with Mike believing in telepathy. Quantum Mechanics rattled the scientific community when it was first proposed but it turned out to be how reality really does work. We still know relatively little about the nature of consciousness and Quantum processes are now turning up in biology. I don't think telepathy can be ruled out.
The silly notions I refered to are Mike's attitudes to Evolution, which conflict with the evidence.
The silly notions I refered to are Mike's attitudes to Evolution, which conflict with the evidence.
ChipperT
Banned in 13 Countries
- Local time
- Yesterday, 16:14
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2010
- Messages
- 347
You are right, it cannot be ruled out. But something with such a defniitely effect should be pretty easy to justify. Find a telepath and let them tell me what I (or any test subject) is thinking. Has yet to be done under laboratory (or any verifiable) conditions, whereas quantum mechanics have. Until telepathy has verfiable and reproduceable results, or a shown scientific basis then I regard it as much a mythical item as is much of the Bible.
The Scientific Method is an axiom, something taken as true without proof. It has been so successful in our search for knowledge that its universal applicability is taken for granted even though we cannot prove this is the case.
A key factor in this axiom is the notion of the independent observer, that the phenomenon can be measured without affecting the outcome.
Surprisingly this notion persists despite the well known situation in Quantum Mechanics where the act of observation is integral to the value of result.
Quantum Mechanics overcame this problem by working in terms of probabilities.
Quantum probabilities allow for an event that would be considered impossible by classical standards. Quantum Tunnelling is an excellent example.
Likewise telepathy should be impossible according to Classical theory because there is no known mechanism by which such information could be transferred. However like Quantum Tunnelling, it cannot be ruled out on that basis.
The postulate that telepathy aught to be easily demonstrated fails beause the act of external observation could potentially obstruct the effect.
Moreover the emanations from the sceptical observers could easily overwhelm any weak Quantum-like effects occurring between the subjects of the experiment.
In any potential telepathic experiment we do not even know the boundaries of the phenomon we are trying to avoid becoming involved with.
Adam Caramon
Registered User
- Local time
- Yesterday, 19:14
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 822
Ok, but until there is more substantial proof than there is now, it would be down right irresponsible to encourage people who think they're telepathic. We've all had moments of seemingly prescience, but that doesn't mean they weren't conincidences, or that there isn't a completely different, mundane answer.
Its the same with the religious crazies. When people say they felt the hand of god guiding them, or the love of god inside them, etc, that's all well and good for them. But until there is more proof, I (and I suspect many others) will continue to think that they're looney tunes.
What I am calling telepathy has never worked like that. My experience has been it is a passive thing, that is, happens without me doing anything to call upon it. Other people I know that experience what we call telepathy do not experience it as reading a mind etc. In fact it seems to be just the reverse in the sense that others can read my mind and especially my wishes/wants.
I have no idea what causes it but I know it happens and is it not coincidence. I rely on it for business/money issues as do many other people. If that make me a looney that is fine
My question is why are principles of evolution and Darwinian thought mostly and strictly limited to scientific arenas when clearly there are huge ramifications in sociology, ethics, economics, etc and yet we 'cling' to taking care of the weak, desolate, and otherwise incapacitated? Why is it that the human experience seems to fly in the opposite direction of survival of the fittest?
It seems that if/when there are any social, moral, economic or otherwise related actions based upon Darwinian thought, people are outraged. Is that overly general, probably yes, but for I think my point is readily understood. One can't have their cake and eat it too...
- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.
It seems that if/when there are any social, moral, economic or otherwise related actions based upon Darwinian thought, people are outraged. Is that overly general, probably yes, but for I think my point is readily understood. One can't have their cake and eat it too...
Also, why are proponents of evolution so 'hell bent' on proselytizing people to force people to line up with their understating of the nature of reality? Why argue? Wouldn't in a totally darwinian/evolutionary context, I have the privilege to posit whatever view gives me a better evolutionary advantage at generating offspring and rising to the top of the herd? What are the ramifications of darwinian/evolutionary constructs in the realm of ideas... why are Darwinians so zealous to propagate their ideas and suppress competing ideas? Is this simply an inherent mechanism of survival? What about in other realms of thought, as it relates to areas of thought and language? What are the political implications of an evolutionary world, is it even possible to rationally posit the idea of 'equal rights' when by definition life is a competition to see who survives? Why is their any concept of environmental responsibility and stewardship?
Anyways... I think if one approaches the topic evolution, there is a lot more below the surface than one originally anticipates. One cannot simply just accept it in terms of some general scientific theory and not begin to answer the related questions and implications. I am not positing that by simply having these questions it invalidates evolution as a viable viewpoint, I simply think ancillary issues are too hastily dismissed and are not dealt with or understood with their full implications.
Also, the concept that scientific truth is value free is incredulous and one can see at times where there are motives or forces drive the desired conclusions.
To me, evolution seems to be the biggest and best example of reductionism.
Anyways... I think if one approaches the topic evolution, there is a lot more below the surface than one originally anticipates. One cannot simply just accept it in terms of some general scientific theory and not begin to answer the related questions and implications. I am not positing that by simply having these questions it invalidates evolution as a viable viewpoint, I simply think ancillary issues are too hastily dismissed and are not dealt with or understood with their full implications.
Also, the concept that scientific truth is value free is incredulous and one can see at times where there are motives or forces drive the desired conclusions.
To me, evolution seems to be the biggest and best example of reductionism.
Last edited:
Because that is a social situation. I am not sure but I think I have read similar but to a much lesser degree happens with elephants and some other animals.
Also I think "survival of the fittest" is over simplifying and really applies to evolution/adaptation of a particular species. In any given environment the various animal types survive to varying degrees.
On the other hand it could be argued that our health system and our old age sytems help our survival and performance because people can work without expending too much energy concerning themselves with health or old age issues.
My question would be then, what is the impetus for social situations? Why do they exist, why did they ever come into being? To me, a lot of presumed nature of reality in evolutionary thought seems overly ad hoc and lacks the explanatory power for a coherent view or system to really give an answer. How does evolution even explain the reason or need for answer, to the extent that, why even ask the question? I don't have the answers myself, but it seems that evolution doesn't fit reality in other domains outside of science and doesn't provide a very good understanding of reality.
Don't forget animals have herds, prides, flocks and so on.
In general, as the intellect of the animal increases it can and does do things that allow it to survive to a greater degree than its physical attributes would suggest. Part of that will be the herd or gatherings of animals of the same species.
I think evolution covers perfectly the reality of life.
I think you are assuiming evolution is like the racing car team who develop the car to shave 1 second off the lap time and the minimum goal is to meet the qualifying time. Evolution is not goal based and the animal either survives or it does not survive. As long as the animal can complete the lap is sufficient.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 00:14
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
Creationism in its full form states that there has been no evolution. According to them God created all the modern species approx 6000 years ago just after he created the universe.
However there are many religious people who believe that God created the first spark of life and then let it evolve over very long periods of time. The only argument between them and atheist evolutionists is on the origin of life.
Rabbie
Super Moderator
- Local time
- Today, 00:14
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2007
- Messages
- 5,906
It seems reasonable to assume that a group can acheive more than an individual so there is a clear survival benefit in working co-operatively. For example a wolf pack can hunt more effectively than a lone individual. The same applies to groups of humans
- Local time
- Yesterday, 18:14
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 27,218
Social situations arise when the strong adult males of the pack have to go hunting in daylight, the strong adult females need to go gathering in daylight, and they need someone to watch the kids. You support the older generation because even though they cannot go hunting or gathering any more, they free the youngest adults to do other things of benefit to the tribe.
Oldsters also teach youngsters vital skills like how to use tools. Or, in stone-age times, how to MAKE tools. How to skin game. How to cook. How to recognize poisonous plants. How to do a gazillion things useful/necessary to survival. Even if modern Man no longer lives in a hunter/gatherer society, oldsters have a lot to contribute.
For that matter, wifey and I are still active grandparents who take care of our youngest one while A's mom finishes up her teaching degree. And let me tell you, he's a hoot! At age 4, he reminds me by deed of what I must have done to MY poor mom. No wonder she was so tired at the end of a day! But then, considering my signature, you would never consider that I was fond of my grandkids, now, would you?
- Richard
Similar threads
