Evolution Theory is Error

Shinji Ikari

Gareth37 wrote: »

Scientifically the theory of evolution is incorrect, it was theory put forward by Darwin over one hundred years ago and since that nobody has proved this theory but in fact evidence exists that the theory has no basis whatsoever:

Proteins cannot form in the oceans because the reaction in which two amino acids bond together releases a water molecule. According to the Le Châtelier Principle, it is not possible for a reaction that releases water to take place in a hydrate environment.

Neither could they produce a single useful amino acid or protein, nor could they prove – despite thousands of experiments – that mutations can have beneficial effects and cause evolution.

Modern technology has allowed humans to discover some aspects of the cell. What was thought to be a murky lump during the time of Darwin has been discovered to be an unimaginably complex system.

Now I am a scientist by profession but science should not be abused in this way.

http://www.albalagh.net/kids/science/evolution.shtml

FAIL

koHd

Haha

Stumbleupon methinks

BlitzKrieg

this made me lol!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs

Zillah

He's completely correct. The tyrannasects did indeed not die out 65 billion years ago.

CDfm

I am a catholic and we dont disagree with Darwin at all.

I am here out of curiousity - but one thing does strike me how atheists are so quick to dismiss any form of theist belief.

JUst take the furore over the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox and Anthony Flews change of heart - he now conceeds a case for a god can be made - making him a deist. Mr D ended up saying Melenie Philips who wrote about the Debate in the Spectator was stupid. VEry high level of intellectual challenge.

And so what if Gareth37 does reject evolutionary biology maybe because its methods rely on a lot of conjecture.I have seen loads of documentaries where scientists have openly admited digging up a pile of fossills bones or the like and saying they arrange the explanation to suit the evidence. So for atheists to use this as a basis of belief you must have faith in the scientists.

How then can you go along and reject any form of theory which includes a form of theist or deist belief. It doesnt make sense or follow logic.

I am not talking about the bible here but why isnt there some sort of offshoot discussion on the Lennox debate etc or is it too close to the bone for some.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

And so what if Gareth37 does reject evolutionary biology maybe because its methods rely on a lot of conjecture.

Either you don't know what conjecture means or you don't understand science, either way you're wrong.

I have seen loads of documentaries where scientists have openly admited digging up a pile of fossills bones or the like and saying they arrange the explanation to suit the evidence.

So, they look at the evidence and come up with an explanation that suits it? Surely that is the absolute best thing they can do? Would you rather they came up with an explanation first and then forced evidence to fit it, and ignored evidence that doesn't? That's what religious people do.

So for atheists to use this as a basis of belief you must have faith in the scientists.

I trust the scientific method, which includes huge amounts of peer review and conclusions based on all available evidence. Again, you either don't know what faith means or you don't understand science, either way you're wrong.

How then can you go along and reject any form of theory which includes a form of theist or deist belief. It doesnt make sense or follow logic.

A theory is a testable model. Models that involve untestable Gods are not and can never be theories. So it makes perfect sense to reject "theories" with theist or deist beliefs because the very proposition is an oxymoron.

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

I have seen loads of documentaries where scientists have openly admited digging up a pile of fossills bones or the like and saying they arrange the explanation to suit the evidence.

As opposed to doing what?

Repeat the above sentence that out loud to yourself once and then go have a think about it.

SimpleSam06

CDfm wrote: »

So for atheists to use this as a basis of belief you must have faith in the scientists.

All of science is based on repeatable experiments. If you don't trust the scientists, you have the ability to complete and interpret the experiments they did yourself, nothing in the world to stop you. If you find new information or interpret what is there in a way that better fits the observable universe, you will be lauded and praised, after your results are grilled by everyone else.

Of course, assuming that there is some vast international conspiracy by the same scientific community to hide some greater religious truth, the very same people that brought us such unbelievable marvels as the computer you used to type in your post, in lieu of taking their word for most of it might be considered to be a little off the map, so to speak.

Religious groups generally have a tendency to view science as an opposing religious group, with its own faiths and belief structures, and try to deal with it on that basis, since thats what they have always done. What most don't realise is that they are dealing with an entirely new phenomenon, the advent of an unprecedented understanding of how the world works, and that to this group of people, religion is completely irrelevant. Not bad, not good, just irrelevant.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Either you don't know what conjecture means or you don't understand science, either way you're wrong.

A theory is a testable model. Models that involve untestable Gods are not and can never be theories. So it makes perfect sense to reject "theories" with theist or deist beliefs because the very proposition is an oxymoron.

ya zillah peer review- I ve seen statistics used in Women Studies programs and subsequently appear in Womens Aid and Government publications that would not pass muster in market research.So much for peer review.

Thats not being anti Womens Movements just quoting from studies that were criticised on methodology for making the "evidence" fit the desired results. The guy who led the opposition to to the MMR vacine did just that. He was a scientist that published and got peer review.

So if the science used is flawed and performed by like minded peers it is not really "reviewed".

If the Lennox debate is representative of peer review of Dawkins -it aint flattereing. Its science Jim but not as we know it and this type of the review is not testable- it just an idea.

So rejecting something just cos you dont like it is science now. Oh,dear.

Makey upey writting is testable cos its by a scientist -yeah right.

I dont know what "proof" Gareth37 has but he is certainly right to post it here cos its certainly the place to go for peer review.

I normally dont find myself agreeing with a scientist but this John Lennox guy seems right on the money -I like him:D

CDfm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

All of science is based on repeatable experiments.

If you don't trust the scientists, you have the ability to complete and interpret the experiments they did yourself, nothing in the world to stop you. If you find new information or interpret what is there in a way that better fits the observable universe, you will be lauded and praised

Religious groups generally have a tendency to view science as an opposing religious group

thanks Sam.

I was lost for words. But atheism is a belief system and its not testable with a repeatable experiment.

Its just an interpretation of the universe according to someone.It needs faith in the person interpreting cos its not exactly testable is it.

IF I came up with an interpretation of the universe and you scoffed it thats hardly a peer review.To say that atheism is science based is a giggle.

That Darwin was funded in the UK by the UK Church and his exhibitions paid for by the UK Church was hardly surpression of new ideas now was it. His exhibitions and writings werent billed " The stuff the Church didnt want you to know". To say that the UK Church was anti Darwin just isnt true.

Yup - the science is awesome.

Zillah

I don't think you get peer review yet. When a scientist is doing science she submits her work in to a peer reviewed journal, and her peers then try to repeat her experiments and critique her methods and conclusions. These peers then provide reccomendations on how the submission should be handled.

Dawkins having a public debate is not him doing science...it's a debate. Now, if you'd like to look up any of the hundreds of peer reviewed articles he's published over the last few decades on subjects to do with evolution, biology and ethology and see what kind of peer review he received then you might get a better idea.

Frankly your posts are incoherent and ill-informed. I can summarise them with "Rahr rahr rahr science isn't so great for no reason I can express rahr rahr rahr".

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think you get peer review yet. When a scientist is doing science she publishes her work

Oh but I do.

Y'all dont like my interpretation of the data or methodoligy thats all.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Oh but I do.

Y'all dont like my interpretation of the data or methodoligy thats all.

No I mean you are patently, demonstrably wrong in what you think peer review is.

You: The sky is green!!!
Me: Uh, no it isn't, it's blue.
You: Y'all dont like my interpretation of the data or methodoligy(sic) thats all

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

No I mean you are patently, demonstrably wrong in what you think peer review is.

You: The sky is green!!!
Me: Uh, no it isn't, it's blue.
You: Y'all dont like my interpretation of the data or methodoligy(sic) thats all

Yup - thats the methodoligy used by scientists to prove atheism alright.

The methodoligy is spot on.

Mainstream churches dont reject evolution - just thought its worth pointing that out.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Yup - thats the methodoligy used by scientists to prove atheism alright.

I am so tired of lowering myself to argue with people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's such a bad sign when it's not an argument with points and counter-points, but an infuriating lecture with a stubborn, ignorant student.

Science doesn't prove anything, ever. Science builds models and tries to make them as accurate as possible. These models have shown that the claims made by religion are usually wrong, such as miracles and geological history. Science has nothing to say about God or atheism. Scepticism, which is a core principle of science, says that belief in God is irrational.

Simi

Zillah wrote: »

I am so tired of lowering myself to argue with people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's such a bad sign when it's not an argument with points and counter-points, but an infuriating lecture with a stubborn, ignorant student.

Then don't. It's pointless. You can't make people smarter than they are, just like you can't dumb down an atheist so they'll suddenly accept a god concept.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

The guy who led the opposition to to the MMR vacine did just that. He was a scientist that published and got peer review.

FYI -- all that Andrew Wakefield said was that until more research was done, the MMR tripe-vaccine should be administered as three single vaccines, despite there being no evidence that there was any causal link between the vaccine and autism. The 1998 study was carried out on only twelve kids, far too little for any reliable evidence to be gathered. His study was co-funded by a group of trial lawyers acting for the parents of autistic kids and when this fact came out, ten of the paper's twelve co-authors retracted their findings. Wakefield and two other guys involved with the paper are facing charges of professional misconduct.

The MMR scare was engineered principally by the UK's media who didn't understand the issues, didn't understand the science and who created the clear impression (not supported by the original paper) that there was a clear causal link between the vaccine and autism. Vaccine takeup plummeted, not helped by Blair who wouldn't say if his kid had been jabbed, and measles is now far more common in the UK than it used to be ten years ago.

Not a good example to pick, in all fairness!

SimpleSam06

CDfm wrote: »

I was lost for words. But atheism is a belief system and its not testable with a repeatable experiment.

Its just an interpretation of the universe according to someone.It needs faith in the person interpreting cos its not exactly testable is it.

I admit I'm a bit late to the thread but I wasn't saying science supported atheism either, as an academic group. There are scientists of every stripe. If however you were to apply scientific methodologies to the question of whether or not there is a god, you could well be excused for coming down on the atheist side. The question being, is there a god, the answer would be to the best of our knowledge no. As a disclaimer, I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist as such, the existence of god is just irrelevant to my personal spirituality.

The good thing about science is that it accepts it doesn't have all of the information and it never will, so it continually adjusts and changes itself to reality as it is observed. Some religious groups see this as a weakness, when it is in fact its greatest strength. However all it means at this time is that science, based on what we can observe at the moment, confirms the existence of god as much as it confirms the existence of pink unicorns carouselling around your head.

I don't think science is meant to be applied to religion as such myself, thats more of a personal decision, as different people deal with the events in their lives and the fact of mortality differently.

If the religious start to interfere with the process of science in the name of their own agenda however, that should be cracked down on severely. An example of this is the foolishness that sprouted recently in the American midwest, some sort of pseudo anti-Darwinian backlash that was merely a cover for talking heads to increase their own press coverage as proponents of manifest destiny.

Darwin's findings have been instrumental in the growth of the field of biology, in particular viral studies and research, which have saved the lives of countless millions, most recently with the swift control of the deadly SARS outbreak, and to challenge that because it might be interpreted as conflicting with a religious text of dubious vintage is not the action of a sane individual.

AtomicHorror

You're pretty good on the philosophical arguments CD, but you're posting some real clangers here.

CDfm wrote: »

And so what if Gareth37 does reject evolutionary biology maybe because its methods rely on a lot of conjecture.

Such as...?

CDfm wrote: »

I have seen loads of documentaries where scientists have openly admited digging up a pile of fossills bones or the like and saying they arrange the explanation to suit the evidence.

Are you serious? My goodness, surely not changing our models to fit the data? That's not conjecture, that's called science. The sum total of countless observations, reproducible observations, is a model we call theory.

CDfm wrote: »

ya zillah peer review- I ve seen statistics used in Women Studies programs and subsequently appear in Womens Aid and Government publications that would not pass muster in market research.So much for peer review.

Generic statistics are often quoted out of context or "interpreted" by various media outlets and groups, and indeed even by the government. Said stats may not be peer reviewed at all but instead generated by companies who specialise in producing statistics to order. It's also possible that the stats/science are peer-reviewed in a rubbish journal. Scientists are well able to discern between good journals and rubbish journals (do meta-analysis, meta-meta-analysis and produce "impact factors"), but you'll often find such papers cited by the likes of Gillian McKeith.

CDfm wrote: »

Thats not being anti Womens Movements just quoting from studies that were criticised on methodology for making the "evidence" fit the desired results. The guy who led the opposition to to the MMR vacine did just that. He was a scientist that published and got peer review.

The MMR vaccine controversy was not started by a peer-reviewed paper. Andrew Wakefield expressed his (vague) reservations in a press-conference. The media turned it into a scare story. The paper most often cited in support does not at any point in text draw a causal relationship between MMR and autism. The conclusions section does not state one. Ten of the thirteen authors of that paper publicly withdrew their support for Wakefield's "interpretation".

CDfm wrote: »

So if the science used is flawed and performed by like minded peers it is not really "reviewed".

On the contrary, you're being reviewed by your direct competitors. They're going to use any exucse at all to demand a re-write or rejection. Far from being too lenient, the peer review system is open to abuse in the other direction. Good papers are stalled in the process while your competitor/reviewer gets his own data together.

Now I'm not saying the process is perfect, but it's a hell of a lot more robust than you seem to think.

CDfm wrote: »

Yup - thats the methodoligy used by scientists to prove atheism alright.

The methodoligy is spot on.

Find me the peer-reviewed paper that concludes that atheism is correct. As Zillah says atheism, like science, is a product of scepticism. I believe there's a much better debate on the "dismissal on evidence" concept elsewhere on this board. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Evolution is a scientific model built on mountains of solid and detailed evidence. Atheism is not a scientific model.

rockbeer

CDfm wrote: »

...atheism is a belief system and its not testable with a repeatable experiment.

Oh no, not this old chestnut again.

CDfm, atheism is a belief system in the same way that thinking Santa is your Uncle Charlie dressed up in a red suit is a belief system. Or, as others have said, in the same way that not playing football is a sport.

CDfm

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I admit I'm a bit late to the thread but I wasn't saying science supported atheism either, as an academic group. There are scientists of every stripe. If however you were to apply scientific methodologies to the question of whether or not there is a god, you could well be excused for coming down on the atheist side. The question being, is there a god, the answer would be to the best of our knowledge no. As a disclaimer, I wouldn't classify myself as an atheist as such, the existence of god is just irrelevant to my personal spiritualit

I don't think science is meant to be applied to religion as such myself, thats more of a personal decision, as different people deal with the events in their lives and the fact of mortality differently.

If the religious start to interfere with the process of science in the name of their own agenda

I agree with you on most of what you say.

The one science issue I have an issue from is stem search research whre vcells are harvested from aborted foetuses- ethically I find it naff.

That strays into abortion territory.Its a statement of fact and I wont get embroilled in that argument.

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with you on most of what you say.

The one science issue I have an issue from is stem search research whre vcells are harvested from aborted foetuses- ethically I find it naff.

That strays into abortion territory.Its a statement of fact and I wont get embroilled in that argument.

... then why bring it up?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Vaccine takeup plummeted, not helped by Blair who wouldn't say if his kid had been jabbed, and measles is now far more common in the UK than it used to be ten years ago.

Not a good example to pick, in all fairness!

I was not being fair was I - it was mean.

Its Blairs legacy - did I read somewhere that he became Catholic. Say it aint so eek:

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I am so tired of lowering myself to argue with people who have no idea what they're talking about. It's such a bad sign when it's not an argument with points and counter-points, but an infuriating lecture with a stubborn, ignorant student.

Scepticism, which is a core principle of science, says that belief in God is irrational.

But dont claim scepticism is science just cos you cant relate to a theist belief system.

I respect your beliefs dont diss mine.

CDfm

Hivemind187 wrote: »

... then why bring it up?

A statement of fact - and a bit of respect to the A & A forum -that Im visiting.

I wouldnt take part in an abortion thread- so I thought it fair to make that clear.

Dave!

CDfm, your head is all over the place man..... You're just posting random tourettes gibberish at times

Hivemind187

CDfm wrote: »

A statement of fact - and a bit of respect to the A & A forum -that Im visiting.

No it was an opinion feebly justified with another statement of opinion.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You're pretty good on the philosophical arguments CD, but you're posting some real clangers here.

Evolution is a scientific model built on mountains of solid and detailed evidence. Atheism is not a scientific model.

Very succinct AH - and something I can say we agree on.:)

CerebralCortex

CDfm wrote: »

A statement of fact - and a bit of respect to the A & A forum -that Im visiting.

I'm gonna risk an infraction but its worth it. CDfm you are full of ****!

CDfm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm gonna risk an infraction but its worth it. CDfm you are full of ****!

I am not in the least offended - too Christian for that.