How could anyone deny evolution?

[Dittohead not!]

And when did I say that?

Who is the more intellectually diverse individual?
One which concedes to the notion that BOTH doctrines are plausible, or one which strictly believes in one doctrine?

Thus, I just made an argument on evolution's behalf...lol

I agree. I must have misinterpreted this exchange:

Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister
Evolution doesn't preclude a deity or any other force. So that's false.

I

t does preclude the notion of creation though.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

I thought we were discussing a SIMPLE explanation...as in Ockhams Razor.

Or did you just Bow out of that debate?

I mean...seriously? Space Aliens now?...though this may indeed be more likely than An old white guy breathing life into clay, it is still far from the obvious simplicity of Natural Selection.

And...if I understand #4, you are implying that the reality exists only in a human mind (please correct me if I misinterpret)...this is the most complicated yet.

Well, I personally do not think aliens visited us and created us.
However, when applied to Ockham's razor it is the simplest.
After all. Is it all that inconceivable that many years in the distant future we humans might discover a planet capable of supporting intelligent life, but with a void any life other than unintelligent life.
And if we did find such a place, given our capability of "creating" life so-to-speak via the cloning process, is it again inconceivable that we may wish to "experiment" with our species on the planet?
Finally if all this is conceivable, is the possibility of our own existence being some past experiment conceivable too?
If so it's quite a simple answer, no?

Again, I am not saying this is my personal belief.

Finally #4 you mind....was just that YOUR mind.
It was a joke you obviously did not get

 

[tecoyah]

Well, I personally do not think aliens visited us and created us.
However, when applied to Ockham's razor it is the simplest.
After all. Is it all that inconceivable that many years in the distant future we humans might discover a planet capable of supporting intelligent life, but with a void any life other than unintelligent life.
And if we did find such a place, given our capability of "creating" life so-to-speak via the cloning process, is it again inconceivable that we may wish to "experiment" with our species on the planet?
Finally if all this is conceivable, is the possibility of our own existence being some past experiment conceivable too?
If so it's quite a simple answer, no?

Again, I am not saying this is my personal belief.

Finally #4 you mind....was just that YOUR mind.
It was a joke you obviously did not get

The Alien Seeding concept is entertaining to ponder, but far more complicated than Natural Selection. As well it does not in most ways replace it.

I did get the joke...And gave it a deadpan reply, as it simply was not funny.

 

[iangb]

Well, I personally do not think aliens visited us and created us.
However, when applied to Ockham's razor it is the simplest.
After all. Is it all that inconceivable that many years in the distant future we humans might discover a planet capable of supporting intelligent life, but with a void any life other than unintelligent life.
And if we did find such a place, given our capability of "creating" life so-to-speak via the cloning process, is it again inconceivable that we may wish to "experiment" with our species on the planet?
Finally if all this is conceivable, is the possibility of our own existence being some past experiment conceivable too?
If so it's quite a simple answer, no?

Again, I am not saying this is my personal belief.

Finally #4 you mind....was just that YOUR mind.
It was a joke you obviously did not get

Alien seeding is not the simplest, because it simply repeats the original question with an extra layer of complexity - where did the aliens come from?

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Alien seeding is not the simplest, because it simply repeats the original question with an extra layer of complexity - where did the aliens come from?

No more complex than asking where did life itself come from. Which according to one person on this thread, that is a question evolution does not even address.

The original question of this thread was, how can people deny evolution?
I feel I have properly addressed the "how" part of that question.
Regardless of a person's reasoning to deny it. Certainly they have the capability to, and for reasons I previously discussed.

My personal view is, the question of life will never be definitively answered. Frankly, I rather like it like that.
I neither admit to the absolute of evolution nor creation, because neither is absolute.
I rather like the unknown and the ability to ponder it, and despise absolute laws.
After all, for years the speed of light was absolute, but now the Hadron Collider is challenging it.

With that said, I am bowing out of this thread.

 

[cmakaioz]

To accept evolution, is to accept many years from now the likes of you will be replaced by something greater.

Evolution doesn't imply any normative coloring. In evolution, later does not mean greater...it means differentially better-adapted to the relevant environment (regardless of whether or not we might view such changes as positive or negative).

That you yourself will be looked down upon as a simple naive creature.

Again, acknowledgement of evolution implies no such normative judgement. It neither requires nor asks that we look down upon cows for their shocking failures at abstract algebra, nor look down upon ourselves for our failure to digest common grass. It neither requires nor asks that we celebrate birds for their ability to fly, nor blue whales for their size. Evolution makes no statement at all, for or against, about ranking adaptations. It offers a causal explanation of how we get variation, not which variations are "better" than others.

To accept evolution also means you accept the simplest solution, and do not have the capacity to envision a greater and more complex reason we are here.

(italics mine)

The emphasized part of the sentence is complete nonsense. Evolutionary biologists (and laypersons simply familiar with evolution) can envision all kinds of reasons for things. If/when they are engaged in science, however, the practical discipline involved is anchored to making and supporting/dismantling claims about how things ACTUALLY are, not about simply coming up with any idea and ignoring that idea's relationship to evidence.

I can conceive of all manner of ideas, both simple and arcane, for "why we are here..." but only a tiny subset of them are actually backed up by evidence.


- - - -

(grr...didn't see Charm's bow-out until after posting)

 

[cmakaioz]

Well, I personally do not think aliens visited us and created us.
However, when applied to Ockham's razor it is the simplest.

No, it isn't. You skipped over that Rather Important condition of ALL OTHER THINGS EQUAL. The equality in question refers to explanatory power, NOT to the relative simplicity of the explanation in isolation. Whether positing a god or an advanced alien civilization as a source of humankind, one would still be left with the burden of explaining how there came to be a god or an alien civilization. This is something many deniers of evolution don't quite seem to grasp: evolution doesn't just offer an explanation of the development of life on earth...it offers an explanation of the development of life generally. It would be a spectacular stretch to assert that aliens going around seeding worth planets could account for ALL life, everywhere. As such, alien planet-seeding and evolution do not have equal explanatory power.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Sorry, but I must interject one last time for the simple minded folks trying to pass off other peoples theories as their own intelligence.
Let me dumb it down.
1. A question was asked in this thread. "HOW"
2. For all the mirage of intelligence portrayed on here nobody has answered it. Unless I missed a bible beater in here that answered "because my bible said so"
3. I propose my solution to the question "HOW" with the answer, because it is still not absolute and likely never will be.
Again I ask. If the original creator of this thread was not prepared for answers when he asked his question. Why did he ask it in the first place? Or am am I mistaken and the title of this thread is simply a mask to cover the true guise which is "Evolution is the absolute, contradict us and we will pretend to be smart"
The beauty of science is that all theories and laws are governed by other theories and laws.
Many of which leave room for questioning.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[tecoyah]

No more complex than asking where did life itself come from. Which according to one person on this thread, that is a question evolution does not even address.

The original question of this thread was, how can people deny evolution?
I feel I have properly addressed the "how" part of that question.
Regardless of a person's reasoning to deny it. Certainly they have the capability to, and for reasons I previously discussed.

My personal view is, the question of life will never be definitively answered. Frankly, I rather like it like that.
I neither admit to the absolute of evolution nor creation, because neither is absolute.
I rather like the unknown and the ability to ponder it, and despise absolute laws.
After all, for years the speed of light was absolute, but now the Hadron Collider is challenging it.

With that said, I am bowing out of this thread.

Unfortunate...you are somewhat entertaining.:lol:

 

[Dittohead not!]

Sorry, but I must interject one last time for the simple minded folks trying to pass off other peoples theories as their own intelligence.
Let me dumb it down.
1. A question was asked in this thread. "HOW"
2. For all the mirage of intelligence portrayed on here nobody has answered it. Unless I missed a bible beater in here that answered "because my bible said so"
3. I propose my solution to the question "HOW" with the answer, because it is still not absolute and likely never will be.
Again I ask. If the original creator of this thread was not prepared for answers when he asked his question. Why did he ask it in the first place? Or am am I mistaken and the title of this thread is simply a mask to cover the true guise which is "Evolution is the absolute, contradict us and we will pretend to be smart"
The beauty of science is that all theories and laws are governed by other theories and laws.
Many of which leave room for questioning.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Oh, so you want to take the question in the title literally, and ask how people can deny evolution. Well, there has to be a way, because there are people who do, obviously.

How you deny evolution, or any other scientific theory with a mountain of evidence behind it is (1) you have to decide what you want to believe, then (2) you begin to accept any evidence, however flimsy or often debunked, that supports your belief, then (3) you reject any and all evidence that you are wrong, and finally (4) you dismiss as fools anyone who has a belief that is different from your own.

That's how anyone can deny evolution.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Oh, so you want to take the question in the title literally, and ask how people can deny evolution. Well, there has to be a way, because there are people who do, obviously.

How you deny evolution, or any other scientific theory with a mountain of evidence behind it is (1) you have to decide what you want to believe, then (2) you begin to accept any evidence, however flimsy or often debunked, that supports your belief, then (3) you reject any and all evidence that you are wrong, and finally (4) you dismiss as fools anyone who has a belief that is different from your own.

That's how anyone can deny evolution.

FYI..
The theory that the speed of light could not be broken had a "mountain of evidence" as well.
And like the theory of evolution, it is something I myself challenged in college. Endlessly writing essays to MIT professors. When everyone said I was crazy I laughed. Now the Hadron Collider might finally vindicate me.
I am not saying I refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of evolution. However, it is funner and more intellectually stimulating to challenge things than to accept them.
Darwin, like many other GREAT scientist have my respect more for challenging things than any of their theories.
If there is a historically famous scientist out there who gained fame by accepting the principles of others and not challenging them at all. I would like to meet him/her.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[iangb]

FYI..
The theory that the speed of light could not be broken had a "mountain of evidence" as well.
And like the theory of evolution, it is something I myself challenged in college. Endlessly writing essays to MIT professors. When everyone said I was crazy I laughed. Now the Hadron Collider might finally vindicate me.
I am not saying I refuse to acknowledge the plausibility of evolution. However, it is funner and more intellectually stimulating to challenge things than to accept them.
Darwin, like many other GREAT scientist have my respect more for challenging things than any of their theories.
If there is a historically famous scientist out there who gained fame by accepting the principles of others and not challenging them at all. I would like to meet him/her.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Nothing can move faster than light. You are behind the times if you are looking at the superluminal neutrino experiment - that was disproven a while ago, by the same scientists that did the original experiment.

Just FYI.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nothing can move faster than light. You are behind the times if you are looking at the superluminal neutrino experiment - that was disproven a while ago, by the same scientists that did the original experiment.

Just FYI.

just another fact that must be discounted by anyone wishing to believe that the speed of light isn't an absolute.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Do us all a favor and research "four wave mixing"

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Dang... Why aren't you two so quick to dismiss me, as before.
Burning your last brain cell trying to grasp that "c" might have already been broken???

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dittohead not!]

Dang... Why aren't you two so quick to dismiss me, as before.
Burning your last brain cell trying to grasp that "c" might have already been broken???

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Why did you change the subject?
I thought you were bowing out of this thread.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

Why did you change the subject?
I thought you were bowing out of this thread.

Because I thought the idiocy of this thread had dwindled to it's last ember. Then someone filled with hot air blew on it and the flames of ignorance rose, and I realized, the fight against stupidity is a never ending battle.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because I thought the idiocy of this thread had dwindled to it's last ember. Then someone filled with hot air blew on it and the flames of ignorance rose, and I realized, the fight against stupidity is a never ending battle.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Oh. You'd better quit blowing, then, and adding more tinder.

 

[CHARMtheMEDIA]

" The voice of the intelligence is drowned
out by the roar of fear. It is ignored by the
voice of desire. It is contradicted by the
voice of shame. It is biased by hate and
extinguished by anger. Most of all it is
silenced by ignorance."- Bela Lugosi

Now to wait patiently for someone to ultimately silence this thread....

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[tecoyah]

Dang... Why aren't you two so quick to dismiss me, as before.
Burning your last brain cell trying to grasp that "c" might have already been broken???

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

and here I thought...you were entertaining. Petty insults make everyone seem rather silly, and have never furthered a debate.

It may very well be Neutrinos in a controlled environment have surpassed the speed of light....there is little relevance to this debate, as relativity is a very complicated a broad field of study...based on advanced theory.

Evolution is far less complex, mostly understood, and literally every new discovery adds to the validity.

 

[Matt Foley]

Science wouldn't be science if it were infallible, like God.

 

[iangb]

and here I thought...you were entertaining. Petty insults make everyone seem rather silly, and have never furthered a debate.

It may very well be Neutrinos in a controlled environment have surpassed the speed of light....there is little relevance to this debate, as relativity is a very complicated a broad field of study...based on advanced theory.

Evolution is far less complex, mostly understood, and literally every new discovery adds to the validity.

Nah, turns out the neutrinos thing was my red herring, apologies. By the looks of it, "four wave mixing" is CHARM's focus - and from what I can find on the subject, it's exactly what I suspected on first reading the term.

@CHARM: that's nothing new. Group velocity and phase velocity are two entirely separate things, and a wave with a superluminal group velocity is nothing special.

 

[wolfman24]

Hello

The big problem is that the Religous Right and those that oppose evolution still live in the 19th century with Chuckie Darwin. In his time Darwin the Anglican Deacon used the tools that science had avaiable to him and come up with rationale, objective conclusions which for his time were accurate and widely accepted (even to some extent by the church of England) in his book Origin of the Species. It wasn't until his second book "Descent of Man" that he got in hot water with the Church. One other point. Russell Wallace came to the same conclusions at about the same time and no one ever heard of him. Why don't the anit's (anti evolution) hate him too.

Anyhow since 1832-1868 things have changed and thats what the radicals can't deal with. In the early 1960's the entire definition of Natural (as opposed to Physical ) Evolution changed. the scientific definiton currently is "the ability of an organisim to successfully adapt to its environment". I repeat the scientific definition. There's not one word in there about man, apes, or any specific species. The definition applies equally to amoebas and alligators. The discovery of DNA changed the whole ball game.

It is my beleif that if you asked an evolutionary biologist about Darwin his answer would be to the effect "what does that have to do wth anything" and he would be right. Science like everything else moves on. The science of Evolution has moved on and continues to do so.

The other thing is the anti's live inside their zone of comfort and critize something they have never seen. I am a wildlife biologist and I have seen it almost everytime I have been in the field. Its there, its real and unless you get out among um you will never see it. the wildilife journals are full of examples but the anti's never read them.

One last point for consideration. In the 1970's a cochroach was discovered that ate the material (organic based) that covered the insulation of the wires in old fashioned TV's. As far as could be determined this was its primary food source. After a few years TV makers stop using that material but the cochroach kept eating the insulation. Where does this fit in with all creatures created at the same time?

Thanks

Wolfman 24