vipr230
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:02:29 +0000
This straw man still hasn't been burned enough...
Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
This is the only point I won't argue with, science only cares about empirical evidence, not how many people believe something. That's why just because a ton of people believe in god, that doesn't make god real. You need empirical evidence to support yourself in science, not a consensus.
... "evolutionist followers". Yeah, cause we say "relativityist followers" and "gravityist followers", "thermodynamicsist followers". Theories supported by evidence are like a religious institution? Really? Religion tells you to take things on faith, science tells you to take things based on empirical evidence, or, rather, try to invalidate the theory by providing yet more empirical evidence.
... The hell? I doubt Darwin ever did say that because he wouldn't know what a random mutation was, you see, he had no idea how genetics worked, no idea about DNA. So what makes you think he'd ever say "it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution?" And what does that even mean? That you need more than one random mutation to be a different species? Well, duh, mutations, while very rare, are still common enough so that at fertilization alone there are multiple inheritable mutations not present in either of the parents. Plus you seem to be forgetting to mention that all important "natural selection" bit. You see, random mutations in the genome creates the changes, but selection non-randomly selects for those mutations, it's in this way that greater complexity can happen not by chance, even if mutations are by chance.
... What does "missing link" mean? There are hundreds of thousands and millions of different common ancestors, but there are multiple extinct "links" from a common ancestor to a modern species anyway.
Except it happens to be "god" in creationism.
Except that "someone/thing" happens to be god in ID. After all, if it's aliens those aliens still needed to come about, you can't stick just to ID unless you bring in god in the beginning. It's creationism in a cheap tuxedo, Cdesign propoinists, Wedge Document, honestly, it was created by people just to get creationism taught in classrooms and the guy who is credited with the movement has even said that there's no real evidence for it and it's completely unsupported while evolution has solved any and all major problems.
... Except biological systems are not like a car, the minor changes happened over time, it's like going from the model T to the DB9 as technology grows. It's not suddenly you have a DB9. Evolution functions by random mutations selected non-randomly which allows for greater complexity in life... over long periods of time, it'd make sense you'd end up with a DB9 or something of far greater complexity, like the human brain.
That's most certainly not evolution, that's the worst straw man I've ever heard... in fact, if two monkeys did nail a goat and come up with a squirrel, you'd absolutely invalidate evolution. I mean you'd invalidate it on epic proportions, as only two closely related animals can even mate successfully, and their offspring would pretty much be sterile. If you go far enough back, say, a goat and a monkey, they share a common ancestor LONGGGGG ago, they should not be able to mate, and if they do and produce a squirrel, you've just shattered the entire phylogenetic tree. Common descent would be utterly rejected.
BlueCollarJoe
rstrous
The movie really was different from what I was expecting. I never really thought about really the beginning of evolution or anything like that. This is a movie you watch to open your eyes to the actual societal and political works of science.
Remember this. Science by concensus is not science. It is politics under the guise of science headed by political monkeys out to pelt anyone who disagrees.
This is the only point I won't argue with, science only cares about empirical evidence, not how many people believe something. That's why just because a ton of people believe in god, that doesn't make god real. You need empirical evidence to support yourself in science, not a consensus.
BlueCollarJoe
Lets break down the salient points, which the evolutionist followers, who are pretty akin to a religious institution, in spite of their howls to the contrary, are.
... "evolutionist followers". Yeah, cause we say "relativityist followers" and "gravityist followers", "thermodynamicsist followers". Theories supported by evidence are like a religious institution? Really? Religion tells you to take things on faith, science tells you to take things based on empirical evidence, or, rather, try to invalidate the theory by providing yet more empirical evidence.
BlueCollarJoe
Evolution: Random mutations caused the changes and evolution of all species. All life began with one single cell organism. Never mind the complexity, nor that Darwin himself said if it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution, his entire theory was useless.
... The hell? I doubt Darwin ever did say that because he wouldn't know what a random mutation was, you see, he had no idea how genetics worked, no idea about DNA. So what makes you think he'd ever say "it would take more than one change to facilitate evolution?" And what does that even mean? That you need more than one random mutation to be a different species? Well, duh, mutations, while very rare, are still common enough so that at fertilization alone there are multiple inheritable mutations not present in either of the parents. Plus you seem to be forgetting to mention that all important "natural selection" bit. You see, random mutations in the genome creates the changes, but selection non-randomly selects for those mutations, it's in this way that greater complexity can happen not by chance, even if mutations are by chance.
BlueCollarJoe
There is not one missing link. There are tens of thousands.
... What does "missing link" mean? There are hundreds of thousands and millions of different common ancestors, but there are multiple extinct "links" from a common ancestor to a modern species anyway.
BlueCollarJoe
Creationism: Some dude pulled everything out of his wazoo from nothing and bang!! Here we are.
Except it happens to be "god" in creationism.
BlueCollarJoe
Intelligent Design: Someone/thing took the available items and, using intelligence, designed all the lifeforms and things in existence and tuned it to work properly.
Except that "someone/thing" happens to be god in ID. After all, if it's aliens those aliens still needed to come about, you can't stick just to ID unless you bring in god in the beginning. It's creationism in a cheap tuxedo, Cdesign propoinists, Wedge Document, honestly, it was created by people just to get creationism taught in classrooms and the guy who is credited with the movement has even said that there's no real evidence for it and it's completely unsupported while evolution has solved any and all major problems.
BlueCollarJoe
A better way to put this, so that the evo's can scream from their pews, is imagine someone has all the materials to build something. They forge, pound, sand and weld. In the end, five tons of material is now a Ferrarri GT.
... Except biological systems are not like a car, the minor changes happened over time, it's like going from the model T to the DB9 as technology grows. It's not suddenly you have a DB9. Evolution functions by random mutations selected non-randomly which allows for greater complexity in life... over long periods of time, it'd make sense you'd end up with a DB9 or something of far greater complexity, like the human brain.
BlueCollarJoe
That is intelligent design. Evolution is, well, two ******** monkeys who nail a goat and come up with a squirrel.
That's most certainly not evolution, that's the worst straw man I've ever heard... in fact, if two monkeys did nail a goat and come up with a squirrel, you'd absolutely invalidate evolution. I mean you'd invalidate it on epic proportions, as only two closely related animals can even mate successfully, and their offspring would pretty much be sterile. If you go far enough back, say, a goat and a monkey, they share a common ancestor LONGGGGG ago, they should not be able to mate, and if they do and produce a squirrel, you've just shattered the entire phylogenetic tree. Common descent would be utterly rejected.
