Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

The one that states movement must be either an illusion or in some way constant do to the reasoning that any amount of distance can be halved infinitely so movement would be imposable, Einsteins contradiction of moving objects made me think of it, I was just curious about yours or anyone elses opinion about it.

I remember reading something that had said since the amount of time for movement is finite and the distance traveled squared is constantly decreasing into infinity..., yadda yadda yadda...

Confuses me!

 

That's very interesting, but beneath my genius status to answer. That's what mortals are for.

 

That's It! The penny has dropped! I get it now!
I am a muthafuckin' genius! Oh yeeeaah!

Thanks, 'noodle...:cheers2:

 

Jumbuli55,
Strange that you think I address you exclusively...

No alternative-- but that ones's wrong. You sound like my ex wife!
It's Hobson's choice.
----------------
I saw an earlier post about equating darwin with evolution - a creationist practice - that is on the mark.

The Evolution of Bio- Organisms is NOT Darwins theory. Competing theories of Evolution had been around for a hundred years before Darwin sailed.
His contribution is twofold:
1) He suggested a mechanism of change-- Natural Selection brought on by changing environmental pressures.
2) He suggested that Homo Sapients are a componet of nature.
That's it.
I've read On Origin of Species and the other book written a decade or so later, (whose name escapes me at the moment). Has anyone else?

There are many examples of life forms adapting to change. Must I point them out?
And who still denies that Humans are a part of nature? Only Biblical Fanatics.

Evolution-- Change-- is a fundememtal part of existence of ALL, not just life. The Uncertainty Principle and 2nd Law of ThermoDynamics insure it. They fuckin' rule EVERYTHING.

Jumbuli55, if you really have no bias and you really want to understand why evolution must be so, you're going to have to start before the existence of life. Otherwise, you're just arguing petty disagreements among... I'm sure you remember the Asimov Quote.

 

It's a mathematical artifact, just like the opposite concept, infinity.
It's rendered meaningless by of the Quantum nature of the existence.

 

There is a lot of confusion of tongues going on here. I don't know what the Urban Dictionary says of right on crouton, But I was seconding your voice. "Crouton", in this instance is lyrical or musical inflection, like a wink. At any rate I think that some people consider the word God to be synonymous with the word belief.

 

Quantum nature of existence?


I'm lost!

 

I have read it , rudenoodle.

First, generally speaking, I would consider article in the mass media as the most unreliable in terms of transmitting scientifically credible data or idea.
And media, btw, is responsible for much of righteous ignorance when it comes to discussion of this particular subject.
People open the paper and read "scientists discovered yesterday that there were two legged fishes who , when rubbing their tails certain way, got more competing species of opposite sex willing to mate".

Conclusions of the average reader:

1) Scientists said that, so it must be 100% true.
2) Wiggling your tail certain way will get you more sex.

Who are those scientists? In what setting discovery was made? Did it even happen so? What records are there? What references?

The reader who gets his "science education" from newspapers rarely asks these questions.


Second, I have read that particular article and found numerous inconsistencies in writers logic, without even getting too much into details.

I didn't respond right away to your initial post after reading the article because hipforum and this subject are not the only things in life that concern me.

But I thought it was necessary for me to read it and address it lest you say I ignore and dismiss "any evidence in favor of evolution".
I would be engaging in the same "ad hominem" argument my opponents do if I refused to read and consider what's written on newspaper merely because I didn't trust the source to deliver scientifically valid information.

I will return to the article you posted in one of my next posts and will expose the points of logical inconsistencies and fallacy found in it.


As to Okiefreak's claims that the guy critical of Darwinism takes the quotes out of context and makes big deal out of small disagreements among evoltionary biologists who generally agree about validity of the theory.

Well, first of all to say that certain species is the ancestor of another in one page (while explaining why it is so) and then move to the next page and say that the same ancestor appeared 4 million years after it's predecessor (again explaining why you think so) , well this is not a matter of small disagreement.

It is called doctoring and twisting of evidence to serve whatever purpose you have in your mind at any given moment.

Now, if the guy critical of Darwinism truly distorts what is written in the textbooks, well ,then some work has to be done to show it.
Somebody has to check references, go to library , find the books he refers to and compare the allegedly distorted quotes to original ones.
Unless you do so, there is no certainty who is distorting what.

Finally, the claim that the guy I quoted happens to be a Creationist, well, frankly I find it totally ridiculous when someone says the critical argument should be dismissed merely because the one espousing it is Creationist.

What if someone who belives in Santa Claus, relying on laws of physics , decides to explain in details why Munchausen's claim that he flew to the Moon on cannonball was hoax. Are you going to tell me then that Munchausen indeed flew to the Moon on cannonball, merely because the guy who disputes it believes in Santa Claus?

I do understand that guy could be hoax or religious fanatic , just as most Darwinists are.
I do understand he may have ulterior motives disputing Darwinism.
I take all that into consideration.

But to dismiss any critical article merely because the one who wrote it had some other scientifically unprovable beliefs - well doing so is called engaging in an ad hominem argument.
And it actually discredits the one who employs such methods more than it discredits the target source.


I find this to be an interesting thread, btw.
Even though we may not have enough academic knowledge to definitely prove or disprove Evolutionary Theory, engaging in a discussion like that is a good exersise in critical thinking. Something many people lack most of the times.

I look forward to hear all arguments in favor of Darwinism , as well as those disagreeing with it.

 

God fits in this thread because both okiefreak and Jubulli55 are preaching the creationist party line. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

In the Christian forum, cutting and pasting is prohibited. Yet here, our creationist buddies do nothing but cut and paste creationist propaganda.

Just in case anyone actually reads this stuff hoping to gain knowledge, they need to know that this is not legit science that is being presented.

The Scientist who disagree on the various mechanisms of Evolutionary Selection are not diputing the process of Evolution itself. That's just the way the RWJ's spin the disputes.

Okiefreak pretty much admits all this by word and action.

jumbulli55 is either a creationist or caught deeply in thier trap. Perhaps if he would open his mind to Knowledge he could still be dragged, albeit kicking and screaming, into the light.

The irony here is that I'm not an atheist. On the other hand, I'm not a fool, ethier.

 

That's such an obvious and blatant lie and discredits you so fundamentally that there is no need for me to address your comments any further.


Thank you for so profoundly discrediting yourself
:cheers2:

 

Quantum Theory in a nutshell:
Things come in packages just so small and that's all.

That goes for everything. Energy, matter, life--EVERYTHING (you can argue abut gravity though. The existence of a graviton may still be disputed.)

A quanta of whatever cannot be divided further and retain it's properties. Hence, a room can be crossed because that last quanta of room cannot be halved.

Quantum theory sprung organically from The Uncertainty Principle. Together, these are two of the parameters of Existence and part of the reason Evolution, from stellar to human, MUST occur.

Did that help?

 

Ha- I sooo nailed you!
Guess that's two creationist down!
You should know, I was discredited among creationist long ago. I'm thier worst nightmare-- someone they can't scam.

But don't think I won't be watching.

 

This is a perfect example why one needs to look at all the evidence directly. It takes more time, but atleast you don't run the risk of being mislead. Discrediting Darwin or Coyne doesn't discredit evolution btw. Evidence does.

 

Only one I see nailed so far is yourself.

Ever since I questioned Darwinism and requested anyone making a claim to prove it or suspend judgement certain type of posters like you attempted to confront me with false dilemma such as "If you are not a Darwinist you must be a Creationist".

Yeah, if you doubt that UFO is a rocket and needs kerosene to fly then by default you must think it flies on horsepoop and is manipulated by a magic man in the skies

Keep on amusing me , you aren't capable of anyhting more than that.

 

If you were able to observe a quanta would you not also be able to observe half of it as well, if it were possable to observe these particles would it not also be possible to measure them in some way and if so why could they not be halved?

I don't mean split by the way!

 

You are correct.

 

Haha, you're full of it. And obviously cannot read very well either. Why do you insist that all those who doubt evolution must believe in Creation?

 

Besides the typical creationists theories on the origin of species what are some other suggestions that those who do not believe in evolution have in order to explain diversity in life?

 

Don't go that route, rudenoodle, it's futile.
Don't use Creationists as an excuse for Darwinism.
Creationists could use the same argument and say "Besides the typical Darwinist theories on the origin of species what are some other suggestions that those who do not believe in Creation have in order to explain diversity in life?"
It wouldn't make their argument any more scientifically valid.

I insist that we don't really know how to explain diveristy in life and how it came to be what it is.

We can try to find out the answer. But just because we can't figure it out yet doesn't mean we have to accept any unsubstantiated theory as a scientifically valid one.

 

There's punctuated equilibrium. Lamarkism.
And what about Panspermia? Sure, there might not be much evidence but there are days when all of us wonder if the man sitting next to us isn't from outer space.