Atheist; 'Evolution is a religion not science' (mythology, prophet, abortion)

[rifleman]

Amazing logic on display here today, as in a museum on Neanderthal thought-processes...

Originally Posted by jackdonekings

Evolution is ever changing, God isn't. Which proves that science is never right, since it uses simple logics...

or this gem...

Thats why science is easy to understand even a 5yr old would know that, simple logics are not true facts.

Nope. Whoever said THAT? But simple logic is how you ask Mother Nature simple questions, one at a time. (It's called SCIENCE). And through that simple logical process you arrive at irrefutable conclusions. After a lot of study and similar results by a whole lot (tens of thousands) of individual researchers, a unified theory evolves. It ceases to be a "theory" for any and all practical purposes, but instead pretty much becomes, as Evolution is now, a Law. As I clearly said, "for all intents and purposes". Just like the Theory of Gravity is generally accepted, and is now refered to as "a Law".

Using semantics against scientists is, for your side, humiliatingly silly and lacking in debating creativity or skill.

Neandethals are made up, these are methods of trying prove evolution. Yet they never sure and they are always coming up with changes to perfect there science.

I assume you refer to that wonderful series of photos of transitional fossils that have been posted so many times. Where was that site, san? Anyone? Anyone? I'll have to make a note of it when I find it. Of course, these fellas then will simply call it all "fake" so what's the point?

So this fella here, jackdonekings, having been provided with quite elegant proof, then simply says "it's all just faked". More lying scientists, don't yah know? And yet they want us to believe their proof-less biblical quotes simply on their face value?

here is a problem, evolution is not exactly proven theory until proven.

Has been. No problem. All of science (95.354678%) agrees. Millions of us! All in concert (which means "agreement", BTW).

I mean a viscous looking tiger without a brain would definitely not survive.

And yet, vicious sounding though you are, here you still are! (Sorry, that may have been a bit too harsh. I apologize. Really!)

Monkeys have not evolved and will never evolve. (? Proof?) Neanderthals are actually meant to be a lot more clever than chimpanzees, yet these ape like humans could not hung (hang?) on to there survival tool, which is the brain. This sounds obscure with no observed proof of evolution, then you have nothing but forgery.

And yet, we have your required proof. You even said it right here, but didn't realize it! The Neanderthals didn't survive, but were out-competed by the later forms of ever-advancing hominid phenotypes. QED* (which, BTW, in science, is shorthand for "Thus It Has Been Proven".

Go on further research to discover the myth of Neanderthals.

Have. No sale!

i read an article from a scientist

WikiAnswers - Why were prehistoric animals so large

I pretty much thought you dismissed all writing by us lying scientists. Why use this one? Selective quote-mining, it's called.

(Oh and, BTW, please re-check your Wiki link. I've improved it, being a scientist and all. You're welcome!)

here is another myth copied and pasted from an evolutionist site.

'another answer comes from one of several evolution theories. over time, larger and smaller animals faded because larger ones were bigger targets (and of course not many carnivores were subject to this but when their food source dies off-large herbivores, so do they) and smaller ones were not adept at getting food easily. so you have a median-today's average size animals.'

It clearly doesn't say that at all! Quite creative of you, JDK! But this site also hardly explained (until I upgraded the info) why elephants, polar/grizz bears, hippos, etc. still exist. It has much more to do with heat energy management, but then you'd have to read all the details about mammalian physiology to say "Aha! That's understandable!".

Just as a micro-micro intro to the most basic physics & logic of your quoted ideas about size: surface areas of a mammal in relation to their body volume decreases if they are large, relative to a smaller animal. (Area increases with the square of dimensions; volume increases with the cube of same. Double an animal's body length, for example, and their surface area is increased by a factor of four. Their bodyh volume, where the heat is held, increases by a factor of nine. Therefore they stay warmer easier, and so are better adapted/evolved. Get it? Grade 10 math.)

Surface radiant heat loss is thereby reduced in a larger animal. So a Polar Bear is larger than a coastal southern black bear. It confers increased survivability by reducing heat loss to the rugged, threatening environment. Why then elephants, so big in the hot countries? Well, they get to have it both ways: good heat energy retention, and then look at those radiator ears they get to use to shed unwanted heat. (It also confers better moisture retention, which is also linked directly to body surface area. (Logical, ain't it? So simple and understandable once you open your eyes. This must be so fun for you, JDK!) And hippos? They live in a water environment, mostly, where their temp is mediated by the relatively constant water temp. It all fits nicely.

don't you think the Siberian tiger should have (gone) extinct since it faces smaller herbivores to satisfy itself. (HUH?) Should the African lion be bigger than the Siberian tiger since its dominion consists of larger prey much bigger than Sika Deer in Asia?.

The African lion must deal with larger, more defensive open-plains game species. The Siberian tiger is a forest animal. Most forest prey species are adapted to the close brushy environment, and are, therefore, smaller. Entirely different niches. Differrent environmental pressures. Actually they are, like Goldilock's bears, "just right" for their chosen ecological niches. Not to big, not too small. It's called adaptive evolution, and is so beautifully logical and proveable that it's frickin' amazing!

Your understanding of basic predator - prey relationships and animal physiology is spectacularly and woefully inadequate. You selectively and relentlessly "quote-mine" to make some silly point. You quote scientists when it suits you, or dismiss the majority scientific consensus because you really can't handle the facts.

The logic explained is too simple to prove evolution, evolution should be observed not explained in simple terms and they are know records of observed evolution.

I assume you meant to say, right here (blue highlites above) , that "there are no records of observed evolution". Quite true by your oddball definition of evolution, but only because you won't look at the real evidence. For those of us used to simple research, the necessary results and proof can be shown overnight in a petri dish. Oh, and forget that other "excuse" I've heard when I do prove it overnight to doubters. They blurt out that all I've proved is "micro-adaptation", not "macro-evolution". (they DO admit I have proved something quite conclusively though, BTW... It's a simple matter of definition.)

That's too old and tired, JDK. They, evolution and adaptation, are ONE AND THE SAME THING. Once a species adopts to and starts to show, outwardly or not, the results of hard changes to its reproduceable DNA structure, and passes these changes on down to its successors, evolution (or, put simply, "change") has obviously occurred. When it confers an ecological advantage to the progeny (the "kids", if you will...), then they are better adapted, and better able to survive. (See "The AIDS virus, antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, Darwin's finches, polar bears, AOAOAI)

Any principles here so far that you find too illogical?

And then, along come we curious humans (some of us, anyways...) and see a species, say a Siberian tiger, and you assume it's fixed in space and time. I see an animal always open to genetic suggestion, always able to use a good improvement, and hence always changeable and changing. Evolving, as it were. Always. Never-ending.

Polar bears, having found the Arctic eco-system devoid of any large carnivores after the last glaciation, changed over (Adapted... Evolved) from brown smaller bears with land-based adaptations and features, to a true marine-adapted (evolved) bear, properly sized for it's very cold environment, with internal physiology to allow it to swim, dive, endure freezing water baths, etc. etc. And with appropriate behavioral adaptations (evolutions) to ensure hunting success in an all-white environment (color, stealth behaviors, etc.), it's a new species. BTW, "species" is a man-made definition. We define it, and that's what we have in all of these examples. New species. By our own definition. But also, key point, evolution doesn't have to create a new species. Just a useful change in the genotype. For instance, a new resistance to the a bacterium or virus. Clear proof of evolution, not some improbable "theory".

The polar bears? Nicely adapted, you'd say. I agree. Nicely evolved. Same thing.

QED*. As we lying, faking ego-maniacal scientists all say.

[Roxolan]

Would write a bigger post, but I'm supposed to study for my exams .

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

SuSuSushi,
Your source is flawed because it begins with a presupposition nor can I find where it distinguishes between micro-evolution (adaptation) and Macro-Evolution (speciation).
Please explain it taking great care to draw the distinction between micro-evolution and Macro-Evolution.

In case anybody wants examples of observed speciation, here you are (http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - broken link).

[rifleman]

Though there are competing definitions, this one is perhaps the most useful, applicable and understandable to the layperson:

(partly taken from Roxolan's excellent link!!, noted above:

http://toarchive.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html (broken link)

"Baum (1992) describes two types of phylogenetic species concepts.

1. A species is the smallest cluster of organisms that possesses at least one diagnostic character. This character may be morphological, biochemical or molecular and must be fixed in reproductively cohesive units.
2. Phylogenetic species may be reproductive communities. Reproductively compatible individuals need not have the diagnostic character of a species. In this case, the individuals need not be conspecific (of or belonging to the same species.)."

FYI, additional definition of phylogeny

phy·log·e·ny (f-lj-n)n. pl. phy·log·e·nies 1. The evolutionary development and history of a species or higher taxonomic grouping of organisms. Also called phylogenesis.
2. The evolutionary development of an organ or other part of an organism: the phylogeny of the amphibian intestinal tract.
3. The historical development of a tribe or racial group

To which I'd like to add, for clarity...

"Adaptation need only produce some changes at the molecular level to generate a new species. The commonly held misconception, and hence the source of much painful but erroneous argument, is that the adaptations which all species undergo in response to their changing environment have nothing to do with speciation, but instead only mean something less. As in "micro-adaptation", a term with no official scientific recognition as regards it being an alternative to "evolution".

"In fact, however it might be erroneously labelled, whenever a permanent change in the organism's genotype (the totality and arrangment of its unique genetic code) has occurred, with a resulting better "fit" into its environmental niche, it is said to have evolved, or adaptively changed".

"Semantics aside, all species are, to a lesser or greater extent, always responding to their environment, and are, hence, in an ongoing evolutionary process. The possible exception is modern man, who, rather than responding to his environment, changes it to better suit him. The development of a forward-thinking brain, and of "planning" for the future, significantly reduced "evolutionary velocity" in man. Still, there are ongoing changes in hominids, such as gross intellect improvements, reductions in overall physical stamina, etc., because such changes do confer improved survivability or are no longer as criticlly important as they might have been in a primitive African Savannah setting."

Micro-adaptation? Simply equals a small part of evolution. So no more objections based on you not having ever seen your cat change into a dog overnight! That would be magic, not "evolution".

QED.

[jackdonekings]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Amazing logic on display here today, as in a museum on Neanderthal thought-processes...



I assume you meant to say, right here (blue highlites above) , that "there are no records of observed evolution". Quite true by your oddball definition of evolution, but only because you won't look at the real evidence. For those of us used to simple research, the necessary results and proof can be shown overnight in a petri dish. Oh, and forget that other "excuse" I've heard when I do prove it overnight to doubters. They blurt out that all I've proved is "micro-adaptation", not "macro-evolution". (they DO admit I have proved something quite conclusively though, BTW... It's a simple matter of definition.)

That's too old and tired, JDK. They, evolution and adaptation, are ONE AND THE SAME THING. Once a species adopts to and starts to show, outwardly or not, the results of hard changes to its reproduceable DNA structure, and passes these changes on down to its successors, evolution (or, put simply, "change") has obviously occurred. When it confers an ecological advantage to the progeny (the "kids", if you will...), then they are better adapted, and better able to survive. (See "The AIDS virus, antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains, Darwin's finches, polar bears, AOAOAI)

Any principles here so far that you find too illogical?

And then, along come we curious humans (some of us, anyways...) and see a species, say a Siberian tiger, and you assume it's fixed in space and time. I see an animal always open to genetic suggestion, always able to use a good improvement, and hence always changeable and changing. Evolving, as it were. Always. Never-ending.

Polar bears, having found the Arctic eco-system devoid of any large carnivores after the last glaciation, changed over (Adapted... Evolved) from brown smaller bears with land-based adaptations and features, to a true marine-adapted (evolved) bear, properly sized for it's very cold environment, with internal physiology to allow it to swim, dive, endure freezing water baths, etc. etc. And with appropriate behavioral adaptations (evolutions) to ensure hunting success in an all-white environment (color, stealth behaviors, etc.), it's a new species. BTW, "species" is a man-made definition. We define it, and that's what we have in all of these examples. New species. By our own definition. But also, key point, evolution doesn't have to create a new species. Just a useful change in the genotype. For instance, a new resistance to the a bacterium or virus. Clear proof of evolution, not some improbable "theory".

The polar bears? Nicely adapted, you'd say. I agree. Nicely evolved. Same thing.

QED*. As we lying, faking ego-maniacal scientists all say.

it's called a forbidden archeology, one would follow a simple logic extraterrestrial, applied to our schools, because it's basic science. Even children today would understand evolution by using simple logical explanation.

Darwin fairy tales is man-made evolutionary theory, not a fact of science.


YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1

check this video out it throws evolution out the door.

[lwowl]

For quite some time now, i got the impression that interdisciplinary learning was all the rave among scientists, so with growing interest in the life sciences, i'd seek to take them along with

Of Mind and Matter - The Mystery of the Human Brain

and - cultural creative i am -

Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite by Rudy Rucker | LibraryThing

never to forget giving credit where due

[sanspeur]

Fail...Forbidden Archeology has been criticized for failing to test simpler hypotheses before proceeding to propose more complex ones (a violation of Occam's razor) and for relying heavily on outdated evidence (often from the 19th and early 20th century). Many of the specimens on which this evidence was based no longer exist.

Tom Morrow of the National Center for Science Education criticized the work, noting that "specimens no longer exist" to back up Cremo's claims, and dubbed it pseudoscience.

Cremo is just another creationist...But subscribes to the Vedic theories of Krishna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cremo

[DC at the Ridge]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

He [jackdonekings] is using science in the discussion the opposition is using opinion, innuendo and evasion tactics. Maybe that's the new science?

He is not using science. He is attacking science. Science does not claim to be an ultimate truth. Science is a process of inquiry. Science posits theories to explain observable phenomena, and as long as the theory consistently explains that phenomena it is accepted. If an experiment or observation contradicts the theory, the theory is proven faulty and is either modified or discarded. Religion does not claim to be theory, it claims to be an absolute truth without observable proof to support it. The same criteria that jackdonekings uses to discredit science (ie, that science can only examine records that exist now, that scientists cannot travel to the past to prove their timelines) can also be turned on religion (ie, people who believe in creationism cannot travel to the past to prove it, they can only examine records that exist now), and that often works to religion's disadvantage. The only record of creationism that exists now is the Bible, but we do have fossils and remains of creatures that scientists can examine, and that do suggest that species adapt to their environments in order to promote survival, and that is the theory of evolution, that lifeforms adapt and mutate over time in ways to promote survival. Fossils don't need a cataclysmic event to create them, they only need an appropriate environment. Tar pits, mud baths, the soft and silty soil of a river in decline. There have been questions about the accuracy of carbon dating, but those questions are questions of methodology, a part of how science changes when new information is acquired. Evolution is not a religion, it's a theory. People who believe in evolution are not worshippers of science or nature or Darwin, they are people who understand that the theory of evolution that was put forth in the 1800's has changed and been modified over the years, and will continue to be modified in the future. The faith required to believe in evolution is only the faith that the fossils we all see all around us, when we pick up rocks while hiking, or look for a good skipper when we're waterside, that those fossils are a part of history, are a record of times past, and that science has a theory to address that record. It's not an absolute faith, because there are no absolutes to scientific theory. Evolution may be replaced by a better theory, just like the theory of gravity may be replaced by a better theory. String theory or particle physics, dimensions and the big bang, they are not the final explanations, they are ideas that explain observable phenomena.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by jackdonekings

it's called a forbidden archeology, one would follow a simple logic extraterrestrial, applied to our schools, because it's basic science. Even children today would understand evolution by using simple logical explanation.

Darwin fairy tales is man-made evolutionary theory, not a fact of science.


YouTube - Fossil Skull Discovery Pt.1

check this video out it throws evolution out the door.

Hah hah. Funny.

JDK, I dutifully and carefully listened to this piece of crud. Your gross mis-understanding of evolutionary processes continues to astound me. No scientist has EVER said that one species has to be completely gone before the next one arrives. They may well, and generally do, fill different niches and be present at the same time, and precisely by that very process they move into unoccupied opportunities. Or, in the case of the young hominids, who were still under "ecological testing", they often co-existed but the better equipped later versions eventually took over. Otherwise we'd still have Neanderthals here today by your own logic.

Ever wonder why there's not very many Ford Pintos out there any more? There were, for a while, quite a few of them, right along side the newly introduced Honda Accords. The Accords, being a better "fit" for the consumer, eventually, not overnight, took over the market. The automotive Savanna, so to speak. The lesser Pintos, after co-existing alongside the better Hondas for a bit, died off.

You have trouble with this sort of logic, don't you?

If you cared to check him out, you'd also know that this Cremo guy is a Creationist, not a scientist (the two are, IMHO, exclusive by definition). Doesn't mean I automatically discount or dis-regard him, but when he spews the same old mis-information, or makes incorrect statements, well, I / we make up our minds. As the endless evidence of continuous mis-information mounts, we finally, yes, do come to some generalized conclusions about Creationism and those who try to validate it.

Also, two key points for your consideration in making any future arguments:

1) YouTube is NOT an accredited scientific source. (Neither, in general, is WikiPedia). At best, it's only entertainment. Otherwise I or anyone can put together a video claiming that the Earth is exactly (a) 5 years old, or (b) 6035 yrs old or (c) 119M years old. You, apparently, then believe it SOLELY BECAUSE it's on YouTube. Sad and mis-informed.

2) Coast-To-Coast AM radio (the source of your faniciful YouTube "proof"), home of the Aluminum Hat wearing, uber-conspiracy, creationist belief crowd, is also not so credible. Fanciful popularized shock-theory stuff from Art Bell or George Noory is just entertainment. He's being controversial just to make a buck.

You have trouble with this sort of concept, don't you?

You "Proved" nothing. In fact, you just affirmed that you have no credible scientific knowledge, are hell-bent on sticking to your beliefs despite specific evidence to the contrary. You have virtually NO understanding of genetics, evolution or logic, and will be just a little further down the dark hole of your life after this discussion.

Apparently there's no hope for you.

I've made all my points, clearly, I think. Anything you don't understand, just find and re-read it. Otherwise, you're just like the elementary school kid out in the playground, arguing just to hear himself.

Good luck with that.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Salt & Light

Have you checked since 1957? Are you familiar with Torcaso v. Watkins or Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia?

nope, never even heard of these things- "Washington Ethical Society" hummmmm, a group of people in a voluntary collective of likeminded individuals meeting for a specific cause does not make up a religion. Otherwise, the BoyScouts would be a cult. as would a quilting circle, or a Bridge Club. But, hey, if they wanna call it a church and go for the tax break, ....why not? these confederations make more sence to me than do the baptists.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by jackdonekings

, one would follow a simple logic

How come the christers keep insisting that evolution is a simple process with simple answers, answerable to simple observations only when viewed by simple minds?