Evolution

[Loki]

So because other sites have come out and said you're crazy, you have decided to come here and tell us other sites call you crazy because of your beliefs which we don't care for.

When do we go back to Pokemon and Going to Hell?

[ObviousUser2010]

If you don't care for my beliefs, get out of this topic.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

I have been following the creation-evolution controversy for quite some time, since I was about 16...

So, about three weeks, give or take?

[ObviousUser2010]

Try 10 years, troll.

[M. M.]

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

Try 10 years, troll.

Come back in 10 years, kid.

[Rangeet]

ObviousUser, you still haven't given me any evidence that there is a God. I'm an atheist. Maybe you could change me! :O

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Come back in 10 years, kid.

Don't tell me what to do, troll.

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Rangeetsuper

ObviousUser, you still haven't given me any evidence that there is a God. I'm an atheist. Maybe you could change me! :O

Actually I did. Go to the site I posted.

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

Don't tell me what to do, troll.

You should do what adults tell you to do.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by True.Origin

Advocates of evolutionary theory practice evolutionism when they routinely invoke (and dogmatically defend) naturalistic and humanistic philosophical presuppositions, and arbitrarily apply those presuppositions to their interpretation of the available empirical data.

This definition of what constitutes an evolutionist is a loaded one.

For starters, what does it mean to "dogmatically" defend a position? We may agree upon the meaning of the word dogma, but do we -- or can we -- agree upon who to label as dogmatic and why and when to label them so? If I explain to you fifty different reasons I have for believing in evolution, some on my side would say I'm being thorough, overly patient with you, and doing a smashing job explaining why evolution is more sound than Newton's laws of physics. I explain to you those same fifty reasons and people on the Creationist side of the spectrum would surely consider me to be a dogmatic persona. "Look at how hard, how desperately he's trying to convince us he's right and we're wrong!" It is in the nature of being on the opposite side of the fence some times and the same side of the fence other times whether you will find certain people to be dogmatic or not.

Second, the definition of an evolutionist as put forth here presumes that the evolutionist believes in what he believes in based on certain "presuppositions." By this definition, most evolutionists would not fit True.Origin's definition! For most evolutionists of the 19th and early 20th centuries do not argue from presuppositions but from evidence. Although again, as with "dogma," here too we may encounter the butting of heads over what it means for someone to truly be "presupposing" one thing or another. By the strictest definitions, even the modest formulation of a scientific hypothesis -- one intended to be rigorously put to the test! -- could be considered a "presupposition." But to go this far is to be entirely disingenuous.

Third, the application of the supposed "presuppositions" are not "arbitrarily" applied to fit the theories of science, as is stated by True.Origins. Quite the contrary: the reasoning of evolutionists is applied only after and in light of the facts. It is not arbitrary to make a well-reasoned argument. The very meaning of the word "arbitrary" would require that an "arbitrarily-made argument" be one which has no basis in anything! Arguments based in empirical data or observations are as non-arbitrary as they come.

Originally Posted by True.Origin

This fact (which many of them zealously deny) severely erodes evolutionists’ credibility, and effectively disqualifies them from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science, though much material is published by evolutionists under the pretense that it is the product only of purely objective and unprejudiced scientific inquiry.

Hahahahahaha. So because I take issue with True.Origin's inaccurate (at best) or dishonest (at worst) definition of what it means to be an evolutionist, I'm suddenly to find myself eroded of all my credibility? Hahahaha. Things only get worse in this quotation as we see the hidden agenda of True.Origin begin to emerge.

"Which many of them zealously deny," writes the webmaster. "Them," he writes. This is highly-biasing language. There's a proper term for this tactic but as I'm not trained in persuasive speaking I'm afraid I don't know it. However, it's a well-known basic tactic in persuasive writings and propaganda to invoke an "us vs. them" mentality in your readers and to automatically include your readership with you, even though there's no basis for this assumption whatsoever.

It gets worse. The writer claims that anyone who takes issue with his inaccurate definitions is to be automatically "[disqualified] from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science." Ridiculous. The author has basically written here, "Anyone who claims to be both objective and a believer in evolution is a liar and is not to be trusted." Sooooo ... the writer is saying that we ought to distrust the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the vast majority of professors in the biological sciences all across the world. "Don't trust their claims to objectivity!" he cries, "But do trust me! Some schlomo on the interwebs!"

Originally Posted by True.Origin

http://www.trueorigin.org/biologymyth.asp

This essay, amongst others I perused, is a good example of what the site has to offer. In it you'll find no actual disproof of evolution. Instead, you'll find personal attack after personal attack against several of evolution's innumerable proponents; personal anecdotes submitted as universal truths by the author (e.g. he submits that since few textbooks in his courses mentioned evolution, it must be the case that this is true everywhere for everyone and not that he perhaps grew up in a ... shall we say "unique" environment); and a lot of tangential reasoning. He takes issue with claims made by evolutionists about evolution (e.g. "evolution is the cornerstone of the biological sciences") and not with the theory itself. I think you already know why, but those of you who do not -- ObviousTroll, perhaps? -- would do well to ask yourself that question and seek out its answer. If you really believe in the man's integrity, fire off an e-mail to him and ask him to rail against the theory proper instead of railing against the only-tangentially related and personal opinions of Darwin's bulldog.

Anyway, I checked out the site, and ...
(1) lots of pseudoscience,
(2) lots of dogma (ironically but not surprisingly ), and
(3) no valid attacks on the theory of evolution itself from the several articles I read.

Care to link me to a specific one and have me explain why it isn't what you suppose it to be? Because otherwise, I'm done with the site. It's earned a big fat REJECTION stamp. If it's the best you've got, your worldview rests on shaky ground!

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

You should do what adults tell you to do.

I'm an adult. It seems that you do not listen to your better's.

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Talon87

This definition of what constitutes an evolutionist is a loaded one.

For starters, what does it mean to "dogmatically" defend a position? We may agree upon the meaning of the word dogma, but do we -- or can we -- agree upon who to label as dogmatic and why and when to label them so? If I explain to you fifty different reasons I have for believing in evolution, some on my side would say I'm being thorough, overly patient with you, and doing a smashing job explaining why evolution is more sound than Newton's laws of physics. I explain to you those same fifty reasons and people on the Creationist side of the spectrum would surely consider me to be a dogmatic persona. "Look at how hard, how desperately he's trying to convince us he's right and we're wrong!" It is in the nature of being on the opposite side of the fence some times and the same side of the fence other times whether you will find certain people to be dogmatic or not.

Second, the definition of an evolutionist as put forth here presumes that the evolutionist believes in what he believes in based on certain "presuppositions." By this definition, most evolutionists would not fit True.Origin's definition! For most evolutionists of the 19th and early 20th centuries do not argue from presuppositions but from evidence. Although again, as with "dogma," here too we may encounter the butting of heads over what it means for someone to truly be "presupposing" one thing or another. By the strictest definitions, even the modest formulation of a scientific hypothesis -- one intended to be rigorously put to the test! -- could be considered a "presupposition." But to go this far is to be entirely disingenuous.

Third, the application of the supposed "presuppositions" are not "arbitrarily" applied to fit the theories of science, as is stated by True.Origins. Quite the contrary: the reasoning of evolutionists is applied only after and in light of the facts. It is not arbitrary to make a well-reasoned argument. The very meaning of the word "arbitrary" would require that an "arbitrarily-made argument" be one which has no basis in anything! Arguments based in empirical data or observations are as non-arbitrary as they come.


Hahahahahaha. So because I take issue with True.Origin's inaccurate (at best) or dishonest (at worst) definition of what it means to be an evolutionist, I'm suddenly to find myself eroded of all my credibility? Hahahaha. Things only get worse in this quotation as we see the hidden agenda of True.Origin begin to emerge.

"Which many of them zealously deny," writes the webmaster. "Them," he writes. This is highly-biasing language. There's a proper term for this tactic but as I'm not trained in persuasive speaking I'm afraid I don't know it. However, it's a well-known basic tactic in persuasive writings and propaganda to invoke an "us vs. them" mentality in your readers and to automatically include your readership with you, even though there's no basis for this assumption whatsoever.

It gets worse. The writer claims that anyone who takes issue with his inaccurate definitions is to be automatically "[disqualified] from any claim to objectivity in matters concerning origins and science." Ridiculous. The author has basically written here, "Anyone who claims to be both objective and a believer in evolution is a liar and is not to be trusted." Sooooo ... the writer is saying that we ought to distrust the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society, and the vast majority of professors in the biological sciences all across the world. "Don't trust their claims to objectivity!" he cries, "But do trust me! Some schlomo on the interwebs!"


This essay, amongst others I perused, is a good example of what the site has to offer. In it you'll find no actual disproof of evolution. Instead, you'll find personal attack after personal attack against several of evolution's innumerable proponents; personal anecdotes submitted as universal truths by the author (e.g. he submits that since few textbooks in his courses mentioned evolution, it must be the case that this is true everywhere for everyone and not that he perhaps grew up in a ... shall we say "unique" environment); and a lot of tangential reasoning. He takes issue with claims made by evolutionists about evolution (e.g. "evolution is the cornerstone of the biological sciences") and not with the theory itself. I think you already know why, but those of you who do not -- ObviousTroll, perhaps? -- would do well to ask yourself that question and seek out its answer. If you really believe in the man's integrity, fire off an e-mail to him and ask him to rail against the theory proper instead of railing against the only-tangentially related and personal opinions of Darwin's bulldog.

Anyway, I checked out the site, and ...
(1) lots of pseudoscience,
(2) lots of dogma (ironically but not surprisingly ), and
(3) no valid attacks on the theory of evolution itself from the several articles I read.

Care to link me to a specific one and have me explain why it isn't what you suppose it to be? Because otherwise, I'm done with the site. It's earned a big fat REJECTION stamp. If it's the best you've got, your worldview rests on shaky ground!

So, comment on these articles.

www.trueorigin.org/schneider.asp
www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

[Doppleganger]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

I'm an adult.

Children musn't lie now.

[Talon87]

Originally Posted by Royal Truman

Living organisms undergo non-random physical and chemical processes with apparent purpose, behavior not typical of inanimate matter. The growth of a seed, repair of a wound, digestion, replication of cells and so on, are performed reproducibly, with machine-like accuracy, and are necessary for survival.

Living organisms are themselves comprised of inanimate matter. Perhaps Dr. Truman, as a Christian, takes comfort in the gestalt idea that we are more than the sum of our parts. Whether this is true or not, it is a fact that we are composed of inanimate matter: and the processes Dr. Truman lists as evidence against chemical randomness are themselves totally bound by the laws of randomness which bind all chemical reactions. That is to say: that a reaction has a predictable outcome does NOT imply that the reagents meet up non-randomly with one another!

For example, we can predict that antibodies in your blood stream will bind to antigens in your blood stream if they match up. However, at chemical equilibrium the equilibrium constant for bound vs. unbound antibody is 1 times 10^-10. In other words, for every 10 billion collisions between an antibody and its target antigen, only of them results in a successful lock. Why? The answer, of course, is randomness. The natural randomness inherent to the system.

1. Your bloodstream is a rough place! That blood may seem like it's flowing like a stream to you or I, but to your average molecule it's like being caught in the middle of a typhoon. Those molecules are a-swirlin' and a-swervin' all over the place!
2. Even if the blood was perfectly still, there's still going to be Brownian motion of both the antibody and antigen. This means that even if we bring them close together, they'll be wiggling about a bit and may wiggle themselves out of their docking position.
3. Also, that assumed we placed them next to each other. If we liken an antibody in motion to a shotput ball, what's the likelihood of our shotput ball hitting the target molecule? Not likely. He's much more likely to miss, swinging right past it and continuing on its way down the blood vessel.

The only reason antibody-antigen bonding works as we know it to work, with predictable results, is because the body floods the blood with gammaglobulins (your antibodies). Because that binding coefficient is so ridiculously low, the body gets around that by producing billions upon billions more antibodies than it would otherwise need to if the body were a kingdom where non-random interactions ruled supreme. In reality, the body is no different than the beaker or the Universe: randomness is a fundamental part of the game.

So, Strike 1 against Dr. Truman for his lack of appreciation for this fact, that is to say for his imposition of his personal (Creationist) views on how the human body functions. Sorry, Dr. Truman, but clots don't heal because God designed clotting to be this perfect harmony of form and function. Clots work because when you flood the blood with clotting proteins, you're bound to get at least one of them to stick to an open wound. (The law of big numbers! )

Taking break. Had final exam today, haven't had much of a "break" since coming home as this feels more like schoolwork than relaxation. Will continue to read the first article, as well as the second, later.

[ObviousUser2010]

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Children musn't lie now.

You're cool.

[Rangeet]

ObviousUser, the site you linked me to convinced me that you are a seriously huge idiot for actually going to such sites. I am also convinced you're not a troll. I now conclude with this picture.

[Jerichi]

Originally Posted by ObviousUser2010

If you don't care for my beliefs, get out of this topic.

That would be everyone in this topic except for the other, slightly less trolling new member.

Enjoy your party of two.

[Rangeet]

Also, it would seem YOU don't care for OUR beliefs. Hypocrite alert? Seriously, you're an awful troll. Instead of giving yourself enjoyment, we're enjoying it.

[unownmew]

Originally Posted by Jerichi

That would be everyone in this topic except for the other, slightly less trolling new member.

Enjoy your party of two.

Just because I believe in creationism, doesn't mean I agree with him.
I have no interest in associating with someone who posts a random controversial statement just to get a reaction. Whether he is an Adult or not, he is behaving like a young child vying for attention, and we're all giving it to him.

If you're going to call me a Troll, be blunt about it, don't beat around the bush saying "slightly less trolling."

Personally I think we're all Trolling in this topic and it should be closed. If someone wants to have a debate on the issue, they should post it in the Debate section with a well thought-out and serious post. If your intent is simply to riddicule and belittle him, go right ahead, but you're only giving him what he wants. I'll no longer be posting here.

[ObviousUser2010]

Hey, I don't care if you're atheist. The old, tired, worn out arguments of atheism have been torn to shreds anyway for thousands of years, so, be my guest, ok. Post here and try to get a rise out of me even though I have done you no harm. By the way, there's nothing wrong with my site. I like how it talks about the truth, and it seems that you atheists "can't handle the truth." I also love it how when people are so hell bent on disproving creationism they fall back on the old "But, but, but, I can't handle or fathom how God/a designer could've created me, and I will fall back into my rebellion against something I don't believe in anyway!" olol

[Talon87]

Well that was a big "Fuck you." Fine by me: saves me time.

[Rangeet]

Oh wow, classic example of the troller getting trolled!

I'll have you know I'm not an atheist. There are plus sides and minus sides to Talon being here. Right now, the pluses are better(boob avatar? Making tl;dr posts so we don't have to? Thanks Talon!) so I suggest you try to answer his arguements.