I've decided to enclose a quote by a prominent illogical figure, and then present my evidence and let the readers rip me a new one.
To Richard Dawkins, in his point that Intelligent Design should be presented in classrooms,(paraphrased) There are more believers than non-believers, and therefore we should teach alternatives to evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life completely.
Okay, where do I begin...
1. You've committed a blatant ad populum fallacy, in that you say that just because a majority of people believe it, it is correct. For thousands of years people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth, and guess what, that's wrong! It is so clear to any logical mind that science is not a democracy, and nor should it be.
2. Evolution doesn't claim to explain life, it explains the species diversity we see today, and although many evolutionists believe in the Big Bang Theory, it doesn't contain itself inside of evolution.
3. As said by Dawkins, just because a scientific theory doesn't explain a certain thing, it doesn't mean that you can throw out the textbook and pull out your bibles. In science, we must always assume a natural explanation and unless decisive proof is put forth by the other side favoring their idea (NOT attacking a rival idea) we can't go jump on the God boat, because when the day comes that science is opened to supernatural activity, I'm moving to Canada and letting this whole holy war business settle itself.
Love my post? Hate it and want to damn me to eternal hellfire? Then post a comment!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sounds like you're targeting dogmatic idiots with your attack. But here's what I say to your three points:
ReplyDelete1. Though the source you are refering to may be committing an ad populum, the real reason that intelligent design should be taught in schools is not because "a buch of people think it's right and that means it is", but that children should be subject to both sides of the equation and get to choose for themselves what to believe. It is not fair to only teach them a flawed theory that is adopted by most agnostics and atheists. Those are both poor paths to choose, but that's a different issue
2. Evolution does not claim to explain life, so kids need to be taught some of the theories as to how it all came about. Besides, the theory of evolution is garbage because there is NO PROOF for macro-evolution, only micro-evolution. You won't see a frog change into a dog, EVER. And any thinker will tell you that even a single cell of bacteria is far too comples to be randomly ""evolved" of brought into being by a bang. It points to intelligent design.
3. It takes faith not to believe in God, so you're throwing yourself in an equally stupid boat with people who refuse to believe in God. Macro-evolution is not science, but science fiction. It has never happened, and never will. There is no proof and never will be. It's an interesting idea and nothing more. There's nothing wrong with using the Bible to explain things, being as many of the things in it are true. It may have its problems, but has truths to it as well.
Lets hope we don't baord the God boat so you don't move to Canada. Honestly, nobody cares and all that shows is your ignorant passion for evolution and your refusal to look at the other side of the argument.
I wholly agree with your post. If they teach intelligent design, they ought to teach intelligent falling as an alternative to gravity.
ReplyDeletehttp://theopinionatedliberal.blogspot.com
@briandecouto
ReplyDeleteYour counterarguments are flawed for the following reasons:
1. Intelligent design should not be taught because it's not science. At all. It is in fact non-science, the opposite of science, as it is based exclusively in faith. This isn't to say it's wrong, necessarily, but it is to say that it should absolutely not be taught in public schools, as faith-based teachings are the prerogatives of the parents and families of children.
2. Who was claiming that a frog could change into a dog? No one. That's idiotic. Macroevolution is only microevolution viewed over a larger time scale. That's right: they're the exact same thing, but microevoltion is studied over a smaller amount of time. Please do more research before blindly spouting claims.
3. That is the most idiotic argument... why does everyone love it so much? That's like saying that bald is a hair color. While it is related to hair, it is not in fact a hair color. It is the absence of hair color, such as atheism is the absence of faith in god. And again, you are mistaken about macroevolution.
That being said, yes, the Bible does contain truths, but much of what is in the Bible cannot be taken literally, and is subject to interpretation, which should take place in a person's own home or church with their family, and not in the public school system.
As to the original post, most of it was very well said, except for the last sentence, which was cliche and childish and just provided fodder for this imbecile's cannon.
@briandecouto
ReplyDeleteYour arguments are ridiculous. Why is it that evolution can not be intelligently designed? Of course a frog isn't going to be a dog. But a frog who is constantly threatened because it is red and lives in a green environment will need to adapt as a population. Frogs with a green pigment will live longer and reproduce better. After a while the frogs will have accumulated enough differences to make mating impossible. This leads to speciation. Which is evolution.
Have you ever stopped to notice that the Bible story chronologically follows evolution? Humans were created last in the Bible... humans are relatively the youngest compared to all other organisms... The Bible doesn't specify what "a day is" in God's time. It could be millions of years, even billions of years. Evolution explains this.
I'd be careful citing Dawkins who is scoffed at in the academic circles.
ReplyDeleteI am a physicist. I believe I have some say in all these matters.
Sadly, it seems you've created your own fallout; by reading your articles and some of your arguments I can tell that you do not know as much as you let on. Your arguments can easly be reversed and used against you with the exact same phrasing.
I claim that "all science is either physics or stamp collecting" -> a quote by Ernust Ruthorford
Unless someone can represent to me an argument for Evolution in a formula, it is still a theory that cannot be proved and holds no legitimacy within interpretation of facts.
Creationism also has no mathematical formula.
In essence, people need to examine the facts independently before putting theories to them: facts independent of theories are truth but are contorted often to match theories.
sadly, there is no reason to say one animal should change to become another. IF evolution were true we'd see animals changing from one state to another all the time. There would be thousenads of intermediate states. There wouldn't be one missing link, but billions.
Statisitically, evolution is not just improbable, but out of the question.
i would suggest you search out this group on facebook for a more intensive debate though... there are a number of members with much better input than what i've seen here
enlighten yourselves
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51672813924&ref=ts
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=ts&gid=51672813924
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&ref=ts&gid=51672813924#/group.php?gid=51672813924&ref=ts
incase you have trouble accessing the group
I find Nate's comment not only useless and biased but also offensive and condescending. Even if he is a physicist, his arguments are from dubious authority, and unless he is also a biologist I really have no interest in his view that all science is physics and everything else is useless. As a physicist and a critic of evolution as a theory, I would like to know his opinion on the diversity of life and the origin of the Earth.
ReplyDelete1. Now, your claim about evolution being "statistically improbable", this offends me in that you use the word statistically after you claim that you can't use math to explain biodiversity and then you turn and use the thought that evolution is improbable using mathematics...?
2.And your claim that if evolution is true that we would see transformation in everyday life, and you disregard the fact that we do see evolution happening presently. Your argument is reminiscent of Kirk Cameron's question about the "crocoduck" in that you use the ridiculous image of one animal becoming another to sway people against a perfectly legitimate scientific theory.
3. The group that you suggest viewing doesn't only discredit your input in my mind but also is an incredibly biased group in which the admin is obviously Christian and I can see that the group is based out of a church. As far as I can tell, this isn't a legitimate debate arena but a biased group that has the potential to ambush anyone with an opposing opinion.
4. I would like to know, from your view as a young physicist, what credited professional scientific circles are you running in that they mock evolution and biology as "not science unless it's an equation". I think that the Facebook group that you represent and your words mark you as someone who clearly puts his ideals over scientific evidence.
5. I don't appreciate that you accuse me of not knowing enough to have an opinion. I never claim to be a biologist, and I would love to hear your response to my articles, as you told me I was easily refutable although you didn't give an example. If you are as unskilled a debater as your friend Jon Topping then I bet you really don't have much to say.
Zoroaster Bless You!(JK)
This is just a general comment I have on what I've seen on this site so far and my logical views on evolution.
ReplyDelete1. IF evolution was true, where are the "missing links" ? There SHOULD be a whole frigin lot of them right? I mean this HAS been going on for millions of years so they say.
2. IF evolution was true, why haven't we seen any of it? All of the supposed "proofs" have been disproved as fallacy. Example, lucy the humanoid. Theres also the dino/bird which I cannot remember the name of..
3. Speaking with simple logic and common sense, how can evolution be true? I'm not a physicist, biologist or any other type of scientist. I'm a high school student with some logic. Logic says order can't come from disorder. What is evolution? Random genetic changes that somehow formed millions of species of everything we see on this planet. DNA is what decides what we look like, what we do and how we do it. There are MILLIONS of variables of DNA that would have to be changed in just the right order to just the right thing in order to even make a cell work right, much less an animal.
4. To wrap all this up, I think the idea of natural selection is logical, IF there was some way for nature to intelligently guide how the species evolved. Saying everything randomly came together and started to work is.. I'm sorry, dumb. Logically, there is NO way evolution could work, there are WAYY to many variables to have changed and rechanged just to create a cell, much less the most unsophisticated animal.
Kyle, to respond:
ReplyDelete1. One of the greatest misconceptions about evolution is that we don't have transitional evidence. This is simply false, as we have seen transitions from birds to dinosaurs as well as from water organisms to land organisms. However, there is many missing fossils, but that doesn't mean there are gaps in the theoretical explanations of those forms.
2. A common misconception about evolution is that it is a 'random' process. Natural selection is anything but random, as any modifications that don't aid to the survival of the animal don't survive, so in a way it is intelligently guiding the process in that only the strongest and fittest survive. We see great examples of this in the natural mutations of disease, a great model is the influenza virus. When organisms become immune or resistant to the virus, it mutates into a different, stronger form, resistant to antibiotics, etc., and the old strain dies.
I believe that you have very good intellectual intentions, but I believe you have been victimized by the wrongful simplification of many peoples common misconceptions of evolution, and from your questions, if you were to do some research you would find answers to your questions about 'randomness' in evolution and the mechanisms of natural selection. Also, be careful not to group evolution with the Big Bang Theory, as I noticed in #3. Although they are commonly connected, evolution explains the diversity of life and not how life came to be.
I look forward to hearing from you, we need more involved debate between high school students (I'm in 9th grade) on this important issue
I would also like to know what alternative ideas you have if you don't support evolution.
ReplyDeleteAnimals were created by microchasms in the 5th dimension(that is, the interaction dimension). Since the 5th dimension is a point, these microchasms actually were created in higher-level dimensions(8th actually, since the requirement needs to be a fold). The direct implication to this is that a line(or string) in the 10th dimensions has a frequency and velocity corresponding to each individual animal. Therefore, largely, animals didn't evolve, but were actually instantly materialized in our 4 percievable dimensions due to some large discharge of energy onto their perspective strings. Since there is still no evidenc of string-to-string energy transfer, then it is logical to assume that these frequence never make any type of large change, noticible down to the 4 p dimensions. Therefore, with science, we can abstractly conclude(With discrete logic-aka math) that there has been no evolution on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteTry that one T.
Interesting, do you have a source i can check out?
ReplyDeleteTo T: I can verify bob's claims, except that superstrings exist in the 11th dimension, not the 10th. I will try to find you the source that I used to learn about the dimensions, it is truly a brilliant source.
ReplyDeleteTo Kyle: We can agree on the following points:
A change in DNA may or may not have an effect on the physical features of the offspring of an animal, or its phenotype.
We can also agree that due to the nature of meiosis and mitosis, which are not perfect, there will often be great amounts of variation over time. After all, over just 70 years the DNA of somatic cells in humans, which are very stable organisms, change and often cause cancer.
We can also agree that more common traits will have a higher chance of being passed down.
Finally, we can agree that some traits are advantageous over others, meaning that some individuals will fare better than others.
Since we can agree on those points, we can agree that microevolution will occur. You don't seem to doubt that. Now, because microevolution will to some extent manifest in differentiating phenotypes of specific individuals in a population, they will respond differently to selective pressures in the environment. That means that the creatures that exhibited less desirable/advantageous will not be able to reproduce as frequently or will die off due to a lesser ability to get resources in a competitive environment. Therefore, the traits that were advantageous get passed on in a greater number of offspring. Those greater number of offspring that have the superior trait will exhibit an advantage over the next generation of offspring too, meaning that f2 will have an even GREATER proportion of the population. Over time, the advantageous species will be unable to breed with the other. This is called speciation. Some organisms, in order to thrive, may go to another environment and thrive there. Others may fill a different niche and end up thriving there instead of in competition with a superior organism. Do you see how order comes of disorder?
My question to you is this: do some research. I know of the evidence for and against evolution, but do you? Do some research, comment back, and let me know. This goes out to anyone who is interested.
Actually, I consider myself quite knowledgeable on this subject, the only exception being bob's argument, one I've since researched and tried to gain knowledge. Although you are quite intelligent,you are certainly not alone in your expertise.
ReplyDelete