Science Disproves Evolution

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Pahu, Nov 9, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    There is no reason to believe new organs could not evolve. The eye evolved many times independently. One of the first "designs" used actual crystal lenses derived from calcite. Evolution is not a "random process". It uses randomness for variation, but it uses trial and error to perfect designs. This is how complex structures like the human brain could have evolved gradually from simpler forms.

    The universe seemed to have a local beginning in the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't anything before it, relative to our point of view. Here is how that could have happened:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You use quotes from scientists as if science were just a matter of knowing who to trust. That is a misconception. Only in religion do you choose who to accept as trustworthy, and then take everything they say on faith. Science actually relies on evidence, and it doesn't matter who it comes from.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Read this: (especially the links in the OP).

    Oh yeah, another fail:
    Can only be said with any certainty to apply to the universe as we know it today.
    We can't say anything about how things worked before the Big Bang.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Why is there no reason? What is the definition of a "new" organ?

    Suppose instead you believe there is a reason for the different kinds of eye, ear, and brain across the spectrum? For instance, the eyes, ears, and brains of insects compared to the corresponding organs in mammals, or fish?

    Suppose that it is possible for these to have developed over hundreds of millions of years, seeing as how there is good reason to believe that at least insects and fish have been around for that long? Why does complexity make the possibility, erm, unpossible?
    Is it just a matter of understanding complexity, or on the other hand, not understanding it, and choosing to believe it can't be understood so "there is no reason to believe" etc?

    Science really isn't about what to believe, I believe.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kennyc Registered Senior Member


    Flawed logic

    #2 is an assumption it does not follow from #1

    #4 does not follow - it is another assumption

    etc. etc. etc...

    If you are going to use logic and science then you have to use it correctly.
  8. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  10. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member


    Point 6 is wrong.

    Point 7 is a conclusion based on point 6.
    Point 9 is errouneous.
    Points 10 and 11 are conclusions based on an errouneous premise.
  11. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    The matter you were made of was non-living originally. The science of evolution is proven and documented. There is no scientific evidence that the supernatural even exists, or even if it did, no evidence it could affect anything physically. Basically it's more creationist bull without foundation.
  12. kriminal99 Registered Senior Member

    There are other explanations for the lack of required mutation rates in multi cell organisms.

    Life experience could be more involved in the mutation process than we realize. If you are a determinist/chaos theorist the idea of "random" mutation doesn't make much sense to you anyways.

    Maybe the distribution of that random is a lot less random than we think and a lot more tailored to fit what the organism's experiences during life.

    Perhaps there is a mechanism in organisms with neurons that match the growth of limbs to some kind of pattern in the neurons that govern their use.

    I guess an important response to arguments like these is, even if god did create life, he wouldn't have needed to do it directly. There are relatively simple algorithms that could generate things as complex as natural life in response to each other. So we cannot presume god in the design and beauty of nature.
  13. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member


    You are trying appeals to authority here - now not only is this a logical fallacy - but none of the supposed authorities you have quoted have any expertise whatsoever in the field we are discussing - so what they have to say holds no weight whatsoever.

    I appreciate that you are very easily led and influenced Pahu, and you have been instructed to beleive and accept everything your masters order you to beleive - but surely even a well-programmed drone like you can see how flimsy these quotations are?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page