Evolution Is In Trouble - Detailed - Why So Many Scientist Are Saying So

[Tobytone]

Partly because I've been away from my computer for the last 5 days and had the time so....This is a long and detailed paper I wrote to get all my arguments out in the opened at one time, rather than the slow drip of shorter replies. I'm posting the first paragraph to set the tone and the rest will be attached as a PDF. I will not be responding to anyone referencing the following paragraph without reading the whole paper. I most likely address whatever point or question you may have about the first paragraph.


We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world. This mantra has been repeated so frequently from multiple sources that it has naturally become a widespread belief. With the presupposition that scientists are smarter and better positioned to make educated conclusions, many trust or have faith that scientists are correct. This thinking has given rise to a world increasingly dismissive of any views that involve God. Why? Is it intentional? It seems many scientists ignore or dismiss strong evidence that, at a minimum, suggests mutation theory is becoming less likely by any standards. Ironically, it’s the advancements in technology that are now revealing undeniable evidence pointing toward design.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 1.

We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world.

Your choice of erroneous rabbit holes makes for a poor line of reasoning. Darwin's theory of evolution is not science, yet you tell your audience right up front that you are going to take them on a pointless journey through hell to convince them that Darwin's theory of evolution is not science ... when your thesis is that Darwin's theory is somehow a failed religion.

It matters not what "scientists" say. Just remind your audience that Darwin's theory of evolution is not science and voila! ... you can actually start on your thesis and totally avoid the unnecessary divergent trek.

We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical
world ... [blah, blah, blah, ... totally unnecessary text deleted ...]

You wasted a lot of time on an extraneous and unnecessary point that could be summed up in one sentence, i.e. "Darwin's theory of evolution is not science, but rather is speculation about the unobserved past, which differs between rational adults per their education and background."

Ironically, it’s the advancements in technology that are now revealing undeniable evidence pointing toward design.

False. Consider it all denied.

He who presents the affirmative argument bears the full burden to support it. Here, you are stating your religious belief that your audience does not necessarily share, and you are falsely presenting it as absolute truth that is somehow established by "advancements in technology."

Of course you may make the claim, but either explain why the reader should accept your assertion or label it as your religious belief ... or else consider it denied outright such that any further arguments that you make that rest on this assertion will also be summarily discarded.

Presume that I use all of the same technology to observe the same universe, and I recognize the observable universe to be a random dustball (dust-disc) that passes the NIST Statistical test suite, the TestU01 library, the spectral test and the Diehard tests. If you wish to convince me otherwise, I'm all ears.

Now, I have to ask, how does any of this measure up to a hill of beans with regard to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Issues like 'Fine Tuning' and microbiology challenge the scientific consensus more each day.

There is no "fine tuning" in total randomness so I don't see any point here.

Darwin's theory of evolution is externally consistent with microbiology.

There is no such thing as scientific consensus; this is a contradiction in terms. "Consensus" implies agreement of something subjective whereas science implies absence of subjectivity.

Over one thousand of today’s top scientists have signed "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," stating, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

The reason this is silly is that the religious views of one thousand "scientists" of the same religion do not obligate anyone to hold that religious view. There are well over one thousand Muslim scientists who accept Darwin's theory of evolution, who believe Islam is correct and that most Chritians should be put to death. I presume you accept that they are correct because they meet quantity sufficiency of scientists, yes?

Some highly regarded scientists have even declared evolutionary theory completely dead.

You can imagine that I don't hold them in high regard. Your assertion is silly and is discarded.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 2.

I thought I’d cut straight to what I believe and mention some of the things that first gave me pause as I seriously tried to confirm
what the 'scientific consensus' has been driving into our heads.

Get used to saying "political consensus" or "social consensus," and realize that the term "scientific consensus" gets your premise rejected outright.

I think, after an objective review of newly discovered evidence about the universe, most would conclude, as I have, that
purposeful design is far more likely than random mutation assembling the machinery needed for even a single cell, regardless of how many years we allow for.

OK, I'm listening.

Consider a [piece of tech designed by humans]; it's incredibly impressive [to other humans] ...

Consider all the highest tech as having been considered.

Now, imagine tossing every tiny part into a cup, shaking it, and then spilling them onto a table repeatedly until they form a
smartwatch. Not the same? No, it's not.

Now, imagine tossing nine six-sided die on a table repeatedly until you roll eleven sevens. Wait, are you telling me that it never happens? Then surely you agree with whatever conclusion I offer ... because you must, right?

It would be far easier than the process of creating and assembling the myriad of components within every cell, along with 3,000,000,000 pairs of
genome that must be in a precise order.

Totally irrelevant. If the laws of chemistry dictate that that is what happens, then that is what happens. It is silly to discuss probabilities that two bodies of matter will accelerate towards each other when science tells us that it is a certainty and what that acceleration will be.

DNA’s ‘computer programming’ is equivalent to millions of lines of code

No, it's not. DNA doesn't have any programming. Try it for something else. How many lines of code does your house equal?

When Darwin was alive, he had no concept of the cell's complexity, viewing it essentially as a
tiny blob of jelly-like substance.

For this reason, Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't discuss cells or draw any conclusions about them.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 3.

He wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

You are about to bite off more than you can chew. You just signed up to demonstrate that any complex organ cannot possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications ... which I don't think you can do.

Such objections as the above would be fatal to my view, if it included advance in organisation as a necessary contingent. They would likewise be fatal, if the above Foraminifera, for instance, could be proved to have first come into existence during the Laurentian epoch, or the above Brachiopods during the Cambrian formation ; for in this case, there would not have been time sufficient for the development of these organisms up to the standard which they had then reached. When advanced up to any given point, there is no necessity, on the theory of natural selection, for their further continued progress; though they will, during each successive age, have to be slightly modified, so as to hold their places in relation to slight changes in their conditions. The foregoing objections hinge on the question whether we really know how old the world is, and at what period the various forms of life first appeared; and this may well be disputed.

Don’t you think the above description of a single cell would have satisfied his condition for his theory to ‘break down’?

You haven't demonstrated anything.

Darwin also faced a significant problem that persists today: the fossil record was, and remains, incomplete.

Yet it was sufficient to inspire his theory. All problems averted.

This troubled him, but he assumed future generations would find the missing evidence.

No, no, and totally irrelevant.

He noted that life seemed to explode onto the scene in a geological millisecond,

Wait, what? Are you assigning bogus positions to dead people? (yes) Does it even matter what Charles Darwin speculated? He presented his theory which discusses only how life changes slowly over long periods of time, not speculates about the unobserved, distant past.

The expected fossils of evolutionary 'failed experiments' were not found,

There is no such thing as an "expected" fossil that is somehow required to be discovered to confirm Darwin's theory as true. Nothing is guaranteed to produce a fossil.

with only flimsy attempts to connect the dots falling short of true transitional creatures.

You don't understand Darwin's theory. You are claiming to refute a theory that you don't understand. It should not come as any surprise to you that only people who irrationally HATE Charles Darwin's theory will lend you any credibility. I find your treatise to be very painful to read; you aren't addressing any points presented by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin's theory is laid out completely in The Origin of Species. Find something in that theory with which you disagree and present your reasons. As it stands, you haven't even touched upon Darwin's theory. All of your points have been about other things that do not fall within the scope of Darwin's theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 4.

Still not convinced?

Not at all.

Let's delve into physics,

Great! You've got my full attention.

where complexity increases tenfold with some fascinating facts.

Why does high complexity matter? Suppose that I grant you amazingly mind-boggling complexity. What's your point?

First, consider gravitational force. Imagine stretching a yardstick from Earth’s surface to 13.5 billion light-years away.

Wouldn't the yardstick break right away?

If we measured gravities force in one-inch increments from Earth to the universe's edge,

Your homework is to ask this question directly to @Into the Night and take his response into account.

moving our current gravitational force mark by just one inch in either direction would mean no life or universe as we know it.

So you too have observed that the laws of nature cannot be adjusted. I'm not sure what you mean by "moving our current gravitational force mark" but it doesn't make much sense.

Next up in the discussion of problems for proponents of random chance,'fine tuning'.

This is a loser argument to those who aren't searching for signs of a creator.

Physicists have calculated that the rate at which the cosmos is expanding, known as the
‘cosmological constant,’ is fine-tuned to within 1:10^120.

You are regurgitating gibberish. More importantly, this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory of evolution.

This level of precision could be likened to flying out hundreds of miles into space, throwing a dart back at Earth, and hitting a target smaller than an atom.

Nope. That would not be analogous to the existence of the laws of nature.

Any change in the rate of the universe's expansion would end us all.

I see the word "would." This is an unverifiable "should'a-would'a-could'a" (subjunctive fallacy) and is hardly ever convincing.

The knowledge that the universe is expanding also allows for calculating the reversal of that expansion, which was effectively the birth of the Big Bang Theory. Quite frankly, the universe starting as an unimaginably dense point the size of a tiny pebble and then, BANG!, the known universe spreads out, sounds very similar to the beginning of a very old story.

... and now you have wandered so far from Darwin's theory of evolution that I can no longer see it shores.

Sure, neither the Big Bang theory nor Charles Darwin's theory of evolution are incompatible with Christianity. They are, however, incompatible with young-earth theory.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 5.

Adding to the complexity,

Perhaps complexity, and not evolution, is your primary focus. Have you considered renaming your thesis?

if the nuclear force that holds atoms together were to decrease by just 1:1000 (a 0.1% change),

1. This is another baseless should'a-would'a-could'a (subjunctive fallacy)
2. the laws of nature do not change and they cannot be changed, so this is a waste of time to discuss
3. this has nothing to do with Darwin's theory

And to continue piling on, for life to exist on Earth, we need a star with similar temperature and mass, a moon of nearly the exact size ratio to maintain tides and stabilize our planet's axial tilt, an orbital path that's neither too far nor too near from the sun for water to exist in all three states, a magnetic field strong enough to deflect solar radiation but not too strong or weak, and a position in the relatively narrow habitable zone of a spiral galaxy like the one we belong to.

Nope. Good luck showing this to be the case.

Each condition, and more than 20 others including Saturn’s precise position in our solar system, must be nearly perfect for our planet to exist, before we even go
down the evolutionary road.

Has anyone ever told you that the orbits of every planet, of every asteroid, of every microplanet and of every comet and meteor is constantly changing? Yet, at no time do any of them vanish when the previous conditions change.

Now, consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

Please tell me that you understand the 2nd LoT.

which essentially says that all systems tend to move from order to disorder over time, meaning everything falls apart without
intervention.

Ummmm, no.

The 2nd LoT states that within any closed system, the amount of usable energy available to perform work strictly decreases over time.

Go with that wording. Now, how does that fit in with your thesis?

Nothing transitions from disorder to order naturally.

You're about to make a major blunder, stemming from your misunderstanding of the meaning of the 2nd LoT. Just remember that diamonds form naturally, i.e. in nature. Diamonds falsify your argument.

A house will fall down over time but will never spontaneously reconstruct itself.

Carbon will never spontaneously form into diamonds ... oh wait, yes it does. You don't understand the 2nd LoT.

Hint: life can form, especially under conditions similar to how diamonds form, and how hydrocarbons form (see Fischer-Tropsh).

The same principle applies to energy and life.

Exactly.

Once you grasp that the complexity of life is almost certainly by design,

Once you grasp that unimagineable complexity exists in randomness, you'll modify your argument.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 6.

you might open your mind to the possibility that events could have unfolded as described in a
book that has outlasted all others. This book not only outlines a historical narrative but also
provides guidance on how to live for a meaningful existence.

Accepting Christianity does not require rejection of Darwin's theory nor does it require butchering physics and chemistry. Accepting Darwin's theory does not require rejection of Christianity.

My advice: Stop regurgitating what others tell you to say. Instead, follow the scientific method and prove/verify everything, and keep what holds while rejecting what obviously doesn't.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 - "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

You can look out at the universe and conclude something other than "complete randomness." If you do, great, but remember that it is your religious view, and if you wish others to accept your view as their own, you need to support your claim, not simply declare it and expect it to be adopted.

Proverbs 25:2 - "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."

It offers explanations for complex phenomena like consciousness, good, evil, love, hate, honor, duty, bravery, cowardice, and fear with real-world examples that remain relevant today.

I'll take your word for it. If you ever wish to discuss such, I'm all ears.

Doesn't it at least deserve a thorough examination?

What is "it"?

Indeed, many world-class scientists and intellectuals are doing just that, realizing that the Earth's story may be very different if approached with an
open mind.

Now would be as good a time as any to get back to Darwin's theory. You've wandered pretty far.

It's plain to see, and equally accessible to both experts and laymen.

It's only visible to those who already believe in the predetermined religious conclusion which they seek.

Geologists often hold the strongest views that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, so I apologize for the following lengthy explanation in advance.

Just jump to where you explain how geologists somehow acquire magical superpowers of omniscience to know the unobserved, distant past.

Historical Geology: Examination of Earth's history through geological time.

Nope.

First, the word "history" does not mean "past." History is written record (which even includes cave drawings). You are talking about prehistory.

Second, There is only "time." There is no special type of time called "geological time."

Third, geologists are not omniscient gods; they cannot "see" the unobserved distant past.

Fourth, this has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin's theory. In fact, Darwin's theory just texted me and it's five time zones away now.

In my view, the entire list above is potentially misinformed by the last one in the list. I have no issue with geologists making their best guesses. However, it seems to me that most are cemented in their old Earth view.

You should have opened in the very beginning by stating your young-earth position and by diving right into why you reject an old-earth view. Everything else that has preceded this has been one colossal, misinformed waste of time.

I'm going to tell you up front, your format appears dishonest.

1. You know that your main point is your young-earth thesis, but you conceal this fact in shame and fear, and don't reveal it until you are certain that the only ones still reading are like-minded believers.

2. You know that the observations made by Charles Darwin pose a daunting challenge to your young-earth view, so you pretend to ignore them in the hopes that they will just go away. As such, you make no attempt to refute any observation, much less every observation, made by Darwin. In fact, you don't know what any of them are. You instead simply jump to proclaiming his conclusions erroneous. That's invalid and gets your argument discarded if you are trying to convince someone else of your view.

3. No person's speculation about any species or any timeline matter. If your point is that the earth is young, then stick to why a rational adult should believe as you do. Your claims that other people's speculations are erroneous do not somehow make your speculation any better. That's why you should ignore everybody else's speculation about the past and just lay out your theory, just as Darwin did.

 

[IBDaMann]

Part 7.

The all-important word 'theory' has nearly been completely forgotten.

Nope. The word "theory" remains intact. See below.

Why? It’s fine to teach what is currently seen as consensus, but it’s still important to include that it’s still a theory

Nope. You are using the wrong wording. You can keep this simple and stick with the following:

A theory is comprised of

1. System: the given system providing context, e.g. science, math, logic, etc.
2. Axioms: the assumptions that always hold true for every argument in the theory and thus never need to be restated
3. Validity: logical consistency between all statements; the conclusion is true if all statements are true
4. Soundness: all statements are shown to be true

The above also form the structure of an "argument" which needs to be shown to be valid, and then needs to be shown to be sound, to then qualify as a "theory". If an argument is either invalid or unsound, it is not a theory and is discarded.

So why do I say 'guesses' or 'theory'?

When someone is guessing, he is speculating. A theory can be speculative. A theory can also be science, however, and as such is not a guess.

Well, I'm being a stickler about this one. Often the first thing any scientist is taught, which for me was in 9th grade Earth science class where I
learned about the ‘Scientific Method.’

You might have learned it incorrectly. You probably weren't a scientist in the 9th grade. It also has nothing to do with Darwin's theory which is drifting further and further away.

The shortest explanation possible: Observe, hypothesize, experiment w/conditions(repeat), analyze, conclude, other
scientists review, then, Congratulations! You've just scientifically proved that the ‘hypothesis’
has happened repeatedly.

Nope. There's a lot you need to learn about the scientific method.

So, with respect to geologists, the various testing methods are educated guesses at best.

All guesses about the unobserved, distant past are wildly speculative. Science cannot speak to the past.

If your main thesis is that the earth is young, stick to hammering away at radiometric dating (and don't write "carbon dating") and how it is a fallacy to presume that all objects form with zero decay matter, i.e. that radiometric dating only tells you the upper limit to how old something might be and that anything could be much younger than whatever age is presented by any radiometric measure.

Geochemists measure decay rates of elements used in various testing methods for periods
ranging from minutes to hours, worth repeating, sometimes minutes, at most hours.

I don't think there is such a thing as a "geochemist" that is any different from a "chemist" ... and any tech who can run the equipment can run a test. You can run a test.

The determined decay rates used in all dating methods assume that these rates never change over
long periods, even with extreme geological events.

Nope. This is a good assumption. Decay rates really don't change, even when temperatures change, pressures change and chemical environments change. You aren't going to achieve victory planting your flag here. I recommend you focus on the assumption of the initial quantity of decay matter always being zero as being absurd, and that it is highly unlikely that initial values are ever zero, i.e. the appearance of age > 0 at age = 0.

When defending the methods, geologists will say they cross-check against other methods and have applied lab simulations of
geological events without observing significant changes.

Sure, the upper limit to age can achieve extremely high confidence. Calling the upper limit the actual age is absurd.

Even AI (programmed by scientists) will defend these methods vigorously.

This is stupid. You are wasting time.

If you dig deeper, you'll find circular logic often being used.

Nope. If you dig deeper, you'll find that AI simply regurgitates what was previously written on the subject. It might even give you the error-filled Wikipedia article verbatim.

The truth is, science is far from certain about our Earth's history

Science says NOTHING about the unobserved past.

I find it remarkable that the best scientific theories of Earth's origin and development,

There are no scientific theories about the unobserved past. There are only speculative theories, and every individual needs to decide whether or not he accepts any of them.

The Genesis narrative remarkably anticipates events unknowable to ancient people,

Nostradamus did the same thing. Each individual needs to determine for himself how "remarkable" he finds such "prophecies."

By the way, I don't mean to brag about my divine visionary powers but in the future, a people united in faith, living near a body of water, will rise up against their adversaries against a sky full of clouds and will cast down their oppressors. How do I do it? It's a gift.

describing creation in an order that aligns with modern scientific understanding: first, light and darkness;

[sigh] You have completely abandoned Darwin's theory and are now begging warmizombies to mock you over the sun being created on the fourth day.

The Bible also describes a global flood, including eruptions from a split under the sea (like the Mariana Trench) and a weather event of unimaginable scale that reshaped continents,

Nope. The waters prevailed 15 cubits and extreme weather killed all life. There is no mention of trenches opening at the bottom of the sea or of continents being reshaped.

He provides ample evidence to make the case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

... which then passes the baton to you to carry it over the finish line and make that case online. It's not going to make itself.

I personally believe the true story is found in the Christian narrative because, in part, it's the
only religion that asks absolutely nothing of me but offers everything, including eternal life.

I'm elated that you discovered a faith that brings you comfort and reassurance in this chaotic world.

The gift is free to all, simply in exchange for acknowledging God's creation, admitting you're a sinner through the free will we demanded at the beginning, recognizing the divine sacrifice God made through his only son’s crucifixion and death, and that he rose again before many witnesses to provide undeniable evidence of his resurrection. That seems like a fair deal, especially when considering the gift of much-needed forgiveness and
everlasting life.

So no rejection of Darwin's theory is required, I see.

One final thought: regardless of your beliefs, science, contrary to popular misconception, doesn't really explain anything.

You are correct. I got hammered for saying this, but science predicts nature; it doesn't explain why.

They describe energy but lack understanding of its cause, they describe gravity and its effects but have no idea what it is or why it exists.

Correct.

Keep this in mind as you navigate your interest in the all-important question of our origin.

Why is this question important?

 

[Tobytone]

Part 3.


You are about to bite off more than you can chew. You just signed up to demonstrate that any complex organ cannot possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications ... which I don't think you can do.




You haven't demonstrated anything.


Yet it was sufficient to inspire his theory. All problems averted.


No, no, and totally irrelevant.


Wait, what? Are you assigning bogus positions to dead people? (yes) Does it even matter what Charles Darwin speculated? He presented his theory which discusses only how life changes slowly over long periods of time, not speculates about the unobserved, distant past.


There is no such thing as an "expected" fossil that is somehow required to be discovered to confirm Darwin's theory as true. Nothing is guaranteed to produce a fossil.


You don't understand Darwin's theory. You are claiming to refute a theory that you don't understand. It should not come as any surprise to you that only people who irrationally HATE Charles Darwin's theory will lend you any credibility. I find your treatise to be very painful to read; you aren't addressing any points presented by Charles Darwin.

Charles Darwin's theory is laid out completely in The Origin of Species. Find something in that theory with which you disagree and present your reasons. As it stands, you haven't even touched upon Darwin's theory. All of your points have been about other things that do not fall within the scope of Darwin's theory.

You've had more intelligent moments, there's a lot here. I'll start with a general statement: Much of the comparisons I use are meant only to appeal to common sense. I'll get more specific tomorrow, it's pretty late.

Also, not sure what genesis you're reading but you seem to be confused about the 4th day.

And quickly, Again I appeal to common sense regarding whether Darwin's understanding of a cells makeup compared to today's known cellular complexity would have given him serious pause about his working theory, simply because imagining a primordial soup getting zapped into a formed single cell (blob of matter) (or whatever was on his mind) with a new ability to split and copy (and please don't tell me about how evolution does not deal with the origin of life at all. it's kinda irrelevant because common sense dictates that any theory has a genesis (you like that pun) that typically inspires you to develop a full theory, which he did not include the origin because he had no viable guess, it was much easier to ignore and move to the next step, IN MY OPINION) LOL Obviously, I could be wrong about that, but I could also be right. I think I right, see how that works. lol I'm just funnin. Some of you assertions about your understanding of science is... how should I say...... as absurd as saying evolution is a likely theory (IN MY OPINION). For example your statement as if you are the authority on science "Decay rates really don't change" is exactly the kind of arrogance that scientist are so frequently guilty of (I'm not suggesting you're a scientist) I'll let you tell me how you know this little fact, then, I'll take it from there. Please don't misunderstand, I always enjoy your two cents. I really do, that said, SOME of the two cents this time (not because you're disagreeing), happens to be exactly what it's worth. Maybe after some rest, I'll feel different. lol Appreciated Sincerely

 

[Tobytone]

You've had more intelligent moments, there's a lot here. I'll start with a general statement: Much of the comparisons I use are meant only to appeal to common sense. I'll get more specific tomorrow, it's pretty late.

Also, not sure what genesis you're reading but you seem to be confused about the 4th day.

And quickly, Again I appeal to common sense regarding whether Darwin's understanding of a cells makeup compared to today's known cellular complexity would have given him serious pause about his working theory, simply because imagining a primordial soup getting zapped into a formed single cell (blob of matter) (or whatever was on his mind) with a new ability to split and copy (and please don't tell me about how evolution does not deal with the origin of life at all. it's kinda irrelevant because common sense dictates that any theory has a genesis (you like that pun) that typically inspires you to develop a full theory, which he did not include the origin because he had no viable guess, it was much easier to ignore and move to the next step, IN MY OPINION) LOL Obviously, I could be wrong about that, but I could also be right. I think I right, see how that works. lol I'm just funnin. Some of you assertions about your understanding of science is... how should I say...... as absurd as saying evolution is a likely theory (IN MY OPINION). For example your statement as if you are the authority on science "Decay rates really don't change" is exactly the kind of arrogance that scientist are so frequently guilty of (I'm not suggesting you're a scientist) I'll let you tell me how you know this little fact, then, I'll take it from there. Please don't misunderstand, I always enjoy your two cents. I really do, that said, SOME of the two cents this time (not because you're disagreeing), happens to be exactly what it's worth. Maybe after some rest, I'll feel different. lol Appreciated Sincerely

I will also note: You may have noticed a bit of snarkiness and my theme of COMMON SENSE. I'll explain, I've been sitting here wide awake watching California burn and Libtard lunacy is on full display. As you know, the hive lacks common sense on an epic scale, and I'm pissed. The fucking idiots really need to move to Europe, maybe Denmark, I don't give a shit, but their stupidity, arrogance, unearned ego's, and absolute inability to have any sort of reasonable thought is just too dangerous to put up with. As I assume you know, the exact same lunacy is responsible for well over 100 millions deaths in the 20th Century. Sadly, they don't even know it. You might say I'm exaggerating, but only by an inch. I'm ranting because I've had it with mindless comments from the truly braindead, I'll leave it there for now. Anyways, I do actually take issue with some of what you said, but that's what makes the world go around. I will get into it after my rage settles down a bit. I'm done beating on my keyboard now.

 

[IBDaMann]

You've had more intelligent moments,

You should be more appreciative.

Much of the comparisons I use are meant only to appeal to common sense.

Nope. You are preaching your religion. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is religion and not any sort of rational analysis. I have pointed out some of the egregious logic and rhetorical errors you made so that you can make a stronger argument.

Also, not sure what genesis you're reading but you seem to be confused about the 4th day.

KJV is the standard.

Genesis 1:14-19 (KJV) - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And quickly, Again I appeal to common sense regarding whether Darwin's understanding of a cells makeup compared to today's known cellular complexity ...

Objection, your honor, relevancy. Sustained.
Objection, your honor, argumentative. Sustained.

... would have given him serious pause about his working theory,

Nope. Charles Darwin wasn't dwelling on origins. You assured me that you already knew this but it seems that you revert back to assigning bogus theories to Darwin every few minutes.

Charles Darwin's theory is of evolution, i.e. life changing ... not of its origins. Your continued discussion of life's origins in conjuntion with Darwin's theory is a waste of time.

(and please don't tell me about how evolution does not deal with the origin of life at all.

You should hang it up. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with life's origins. All you're doing is broadcasting that you have never read the theory that you are attempting to refute and that you have no clue what you are talking about. Don't be totally shocked when you get pummeled in short order.

Nobody respects the guy who has relegated himself to assigning bogus positions to others so that he'll at least have something to attack. By pretending that Darwin's theory is something entirely other than what it is, and by making it out to be a horrendously bogus theory just so your religious view looks reasonable by comparison, you are being "that guy."

it's kinda irrelevant because common sense dictates that any theory has a genesis (you like that pun) that typically inspires you to develop a full theory, which he did not include the origin because he had no viable guess, it was much easier to ignore and move to the next step, IN MY OPINION)

... and this is a completely uninformed opinion. Charles Darwin's conclusions all stem from his observations, all of which are documented in his book. The one with the problem is you. You can't specify even a single point of Darwin's with which you disagree, because you haven't read it. You've already killed any authority you might have otherwise had if you had only brushed up on "The Origin of Species" before wasting your time pretending to refute a bogus theory to which you assigned the label of "evolution."

For example your statement as if you are the authority on science "Decay rates really don't change" is exactly the kind of arrogance that scientist are so frequently guilty of

... or you could brush up on radioactive decay, find out that I am correct and thank me for the information.

I'll let you tell me how you know this little fact,

Radioactive decay is a stable process that remains unaffected by temperature, pressure, and chemical environment. You're welcome.

 

[Tobytone]

You should be more appreciative.


Nope. You are preaching your religion. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is religion and not any sort of rational analysis. I have pointed out some of the egregious logic and rhetorical errors you made so that you can make a stronger argument.


KJV is the standard.

Genesis 1:14-19 (KJV) - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


Objection, your honor, relevancy. Sustained.
Objection, your honor, argumentative. Sustained.


Nope. Charles Darwin wasn't dwelling on origins. You assured me that you already knew this but it seems that you revert back to assigning bogus theories to Darwin every few minutes.

Charles Darwin's theory is of evolution, i.e. life changing ... not of its origins. Your continued discussion of life's origins in conjuntion with Darwin's theory is a waste of time.


You should hang it up. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with life's origins. All you're doing is broadcasting that you have never read the theory that you are attempting to refute and that you have no clue what you are talking about. Don't be totally shocked when you get pummeled in short order.

Nobody respects the guy who has relegated himself to assigning bogus positions to others so that he'll at least have something to attack. By pretending that Darwin's theory is something entirely other than what it is, and by making it out to be a horrendously bogus theory just so your religious view looks reasonable by comparison, you are being "that guy."


... and this is a completely uninformed opinion. Charles Darwin's conclusions all stem from his observations, all of which are documented in his book. The one with the problem is you. You can't specify even a single point of Darwin's with which you disagree, because you haven't read it. You've already killed any authority you might have otherwise had if you had only brushed up on "The Origin of Species" before wasting your time pretending to refute a bogus theory to which you assigned the label of "evolution."


... or you could brush up on radioactive decay, find out that I am correct and thank me for the information.


Radioactive decay is a stable process that remains unaffected by temperature, pressure, and chemical environment. You're welcome.

Oh, I'm just exhausted now, but I'll humor you with this. Alright, here goes:

1 In the beginning, God apparently decided to start his DIY project on the universe, creating the heavens and the earth.2 Now, the earth was just a mess - formless, empty, darker than my sense of humor, and the Spirit of God was just hovering around like a helicopter parent over some primordial soup.3 Then God said, "Let there be light," and voila! Light showed up. Must've been easier than finding a light switch in my house.4 God saw the light was good, probably because it was the only thing there to see, and he split it from the darkness.5 He called light "day" and darkness "night." And there was evening, and morning - the first day. Wow, timekeeping in its infancy.

What I was trying to point out, for those playing at home, is how this story basically lines up with science. Interesting, right? I didn't say it's a photocopy, I only said I find it interesting. But let's not forget, even the KJV isn't exactly a direct translation from the original. If you know anything about Hebrew, you'd know that the "days" in Hebrew are about as meaningful as a chocolate teapot. They don't really start distinguishing days until the last two, but who's keeping track, you don't believe me, I'm fine with that, you can go find out for yourself. I already know

Speaking of which, let's talk about Darwin, shall we? The guy wasn't just writing about evolution; he was exploring everything from races to emotions, to the bizarre thoughts about plants . I've probably read more of his books than you've had hot dinners and I'm guessing you were still shitting yellow. I might've paraphrased a bit, but the gist is there. This isn't rocket science, it's common sense - if either of us have any at this ungodly hour.

I know of over 30 of Darwin's books, I'm guessing but there's likely 50-75, not one. Many dive deep into his observations. Maybe you're just proud of skimming through one. And, no, I'm not going to dig through my basement; I remember what I've read, and I don't care who thinks they've mastered a subject with a single book. Apparently, you have a thing for him, which is fine, again, I don't care.

And let's get this straight before I crash again: this isn't a courtroom, it's the internet. My opinions? I think they're clear enough for anyone with Common Sense. Notice, I love those words. People that posses it, understand it, so I'm not going to apologize for that at all. Those that don't understand will likely never understand, and I'm fine with that. You want to call me ignorant or misguided or a shitstain, I don't give a runny shit. lol really, I mean that, not to diminish your brilliance at all.

Oh, my OP was a gripe about how scientists should preface their spiels about the Earth's 4.5 billion year history with "we believe" or "the theory" because, you know, humility is so last century. And evolution? It's on its last legs, according to me, backed by some "facts", of course. The second thread is about how so many things (in my opinion, and others I've shared with) point to the reality that evolution theory is dying. I prefer theory, sue me

Lastly, the age of the Earth has no bearing on the Bible's story, just so that's clear, but I bet you'll disagree or not, or someone will jump in without thinking it through. And your little quip about radioactive decay? Oh, please, you've got some thinking to do. I'm trying to teach you, not the other way around. I asked you, how you know decay rates are constant, not for a high school chemistry lesson.

Let's keep it light, shall we? I'll give you one more round for insults to even the playing field, then maybe we can have an adult conversation. Let's not descend into a mudslinging match any more, just a thought, Your turn.

 

[IBDaMann]

What I was trying to point out, for those playing at home, is how this story basically lines up with science.

What I was trying to point out to you is that there is no science with which the Bible can align. Science cannot speak to the unobserved past.

If you know anything about Hebrew, you'd know that the "days" in Hebrew are about as meaningful as a chocolate teapot.

I'm aware. The Hebrew word for "day" is the same as the Hebrew word for "span of time," of which a day happens to be.

They don't really start distinguishing days until the last two, but who's keeping track,

The sun can't really be created on the fourth day, but none of that really matters.

Speaking of which, let's talk about Darwin, shall we? The guy wasn't just writing about evolution; he was exploring everything from races to emotions, to the bizarre thoughts about plants .

Nope. He was making observations.

This isn't rocket science, it's common sense - if either of us have any at this ungodly hour.

You are referring to your religious faith as "common sense." Others who do not share your faith find their differing beliefs to be "common sense" as well.

I know of over 30 of Darwin's books, I'm guessing but there's likely 50-75, not one.

I specified the theory detailed in On The Origin of Species.

And let's get this straight before I crash again: this isn't a courtroom, it's the internet. My opinions? I think they're clear enough for anyone with Common Sense.

Regardless, he who makes the affirmative argument bears the full burden to support it.

Oh, my OP was a gripe about how scientists should preface their spiels about the Earth's 4.5 billion year history with "we believe" or "the theory" because, you know, humility is so last century.

Entirely correct. All speculation should be labelled as such.

And evolution? It's on its last legs, according to me,

I'm a huge fan.

The second thread is about how so many things (in my opinion, and others I've shared with) point to the reality that evolution theory is dying.

Your observations should be telling you that Darwin's theory is alive and well, and more popular than ever. You should give it a try. Jump on in. The primordial water is very warm.

Lastly, the age of the Earth has no bearing on the Bible's story, just so that's clear,

It's clear.

And your little quip about radioactive decay? Oh, please, you've got some thinking to do

Nope. You should break open a physics textbook and read a couple of pages:

"Second, the radiation does not vary with changes in temperature or pressure—both factors that in sufficient degree can affect electrons in an atom."

I'm trying to teach you, not the other way around.

Are you saying that you are deliberately not going to learn?

I asked you, how you know decay rates are constant, not for a high school chemistry lesson.

Just like any other law, no one has ever observed otherwise. Do you accept the idea of gravity?

Let's keep it light, shall we? I'll give you one more round for insults to even the playing field, then maybe we can have an adult conversation. Let's not descend into a mudslinging match any more, just a thought, Your turn.

You'll have to let me know when I have hurled any insults.

 

[ZenMode]

Evolution is not in trouble or on its last legs.

Like with the Bible, people often find what they want to find in other areas, including science.

On a side note, I always find it confusing when people are quoting the Bible while talking about common sense.

 

[Into the Night]

You've had more intelligent moments, there's a lot here. I'll start with a general statement: Much of the comparisons I use are meant only to appeal to common sense. I'll get more specific tomorrow, it's pretty late.

Also, not sure what genesis you're reading but you seem to be confused about the 4th day.

And quickly, Again I appeal to common sense regarding whether Darwin's understanding of a cells makeup compared to today's known cellular complexity would have given him serious pause about his working theory, simply because imagining a primordial soup getting zapped into a formed single cell (blob of matter) (or whatever was on his mind) with a new ability to split and copy (and please don't tell me about how evolution does not deal with the origin of life at all. it's kinda irrelevant because common sense dictates that any theory has a genesis (you like that pun) that typically inspires you to develop a full theory, which he did not include the origin because he had no viable guess, it was much easier to ignore and move to the next step, IN MY OPINION) LOL Obviously, I could be wrong about that, but I could also be right. I think I right, see how that works. lol I'm just funnin. Some of you assertions about your understanding of science is... how should I say...... as absurd as saying evolution is a likely theory (IN MY OPINION). For example your statement as if you are the authority on science "Decay rates really don't change" is exactly the kind of arrogance that scientist are so frequently guilty of (I'm not suggesting you're a scientist) I'll let you tell me how you know this little fact, then, I'll take it from there. Please don't misunderstand, I always enjoy your two cents. I really do, that said, SOME of the two cents this time (not because you're disagreeing), happens to be exactly what it's worth. Maybe after some rest, I'll feel different. lol Appreciated Sincerely

You really should be careful about translations of languages. The '4th day' does NOT necessarily mean a 24-hour day.

In general, words translate, idioms do not.

There is no word for 'day' in Hebrew. The analogous word they use essentially means 'period', but is also used to refer to the 24-hour day. The period is UNSPECIFIED. It can be ANY LENGTH OF TIME. Even millennia can be a 'day'.

The age of the Earth is unknown.

Darwin did not discuss cells at all.

The Theory of Abiogenesis is a religion. The Theory of Creation is a religion. The Theory of the Big Bang is a religion. The Theory of Evolution is a religion. The Theory of the Continuum is a religion.

Darwin created NONE of these theories.

There is no Magick Decay Rate from the formation of the Earth.

At this point I am convinced that you have no idea what science is. You have so far confused science with engineering and again with religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Evolution is not in trouble or on its last legs.

Like with the Bible, people often find what they want to find in other areas, including science.

On a side note, I always find it confusing when people are quoting the Bible while talking about common sense.

The Bible does not conflict with any theory of science. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT a theory of science. It is a religion. It states that present life evolved from more 'primitive' life (such as Man from Ape). This theory was NOT created by Darwin.

 

[ZenMode]

The Bible does not conflict with any theory of science. Science has no religion. It is completely atheistic. It doesn't care whether a god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there.

The Theory of Evolution is NOT a theory of science. It is a religion. It states that present life evolved from more 'primitive' life (such as Man from Ape). This theory was NOT created by Darwin.

Like I said, people can find basically anything they want in the Bible if they're willing to put in enough work and perform enough mental gymnastics. They can rationalize things away, play with words and translations, "reinterpret" meanings of passages.

 

[Truth Detector]

Partly because I've been away from my computer for the last 5 days and had the time so....This is a long and detailed paper I wrote to get all my arguments out in the opened at one time, rather than the slow drip of shorter replies. I'm posting the first paragraph to set the tone and the rest will be attached as a PDF. I will not be responding to anyone referencing the following paragraph without reading the whole paper. I most likely address whatever point or question you may have about the first paragraph.


We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world. This mantra has been repeated so frequently from multiple sources that it has naturally become a widespread belief. With the presupposition that scientists are smarter and better positioned to make educated conclusions, many trust or have faith that scientists are correct. This thinking has given rise to a world increasingly dismissive of any views that involve God. Why? Is it intentional? It seems many scientists ignore or dismiss strong evidence that, at a minimum, suggests mutation theory is becoming less likely by any standards. Ironically, it’s the advancements in technology that are now revealing undeniable evidence pointing toward design.

Why? Is it intentional?

The reason is obvious, it is far easier for Governments to control mindless tools who don't believe in a higher authority led by morals and where community and family is far more important.

Just look at the efforts to suggest that men can become women and vice versa. The efforts to destroy the family with Government handouts and abortion on demand.

Over 75 million voters voted for a cackling brainless twat who promised more failure and malaise simply because they didn't like a man who believed in normalcy. The decline of any civilization begins with progressive liberal views and casting God and morality out of the window.

 

[Daylight63]

Partly because I've been away from my computer for the last 5 days and had the time so....This is a long and detailed paper I wrote to get all my arguments out in the opened at one time, rather than the slow drip of shorter replies. I'm posting the first paragraph to set the tone and the rest will be attached as a PDF. I will not be responding to anyone referencing the following paragraph without reading the whole paper. I most likely address whatever point or question you may have about the first paragraph.


We're often told, and many assume, that science has essentially figured out the physical world. This mantra has been repeated so frequently from multiple sources that it has naturally become a widespread belief. With the presupposition that scientists are smarter and better positioned to make educated conclusions, many trust or have faith that scientists are correct. This thinking has given rise to a world increasingly dismissive of any views that involve God. Why? Is it intentional? It seems many scientists ignore or dismiss strong evidence that, at a minimum, suggests mutation theory is becoming less likely by any standards. Ironically, it’s the advancements in technology that are now revealing undeniable evidence pointing toward design.

Toby, did you forget to respond to just ANY of the points in your previous Gish-Gallop over on the Grand Canyon thread?

I get it, I've seen it about a billion times now. Creationist wants people to know how wrong geology is. Someone comes on who actually KNOWS geology and shows you the errors and you run away.

Sad, really. Your beliefs don't seem to require evidence or even truth to be closely held.

And here you are moving onto the NEXT topic in your ginormous GISH GALLOP.

 

[Truth Detector]

Evolution is not in trouble or on its last legs.

It also is not science.

Like with the Bible, people often find what they want to find in other areas, including science.

Evidence?

On a side note, I always find it confusing when people are quoting the Bible while talking about common sense.

What is common sense? Is it learned or inherent?