Evolution is only a theory...or is it?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Shit, just noticed you basically just admitted you just want to believe fantasy.

Nope, I admitted that I don't know and that I don't discount the possibility that either could be true.

Regardless of how much you think we know, it is not enough to create life nor to prove definitively than life was spun out of a magical primordial soup. Closing your mind to any of the other possibilities is what makes you look like an idiot.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
Here liet wisdom!
Let the man who hath understanding sense!
Evolution is the Hierarchical conversion of circumstantial truth into proto-biophysiological truth!
What lies above so is below!
All love the savior, hail the destroyer and appreciate the creator for all his troubles!
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Not even in the slightest.


I have never suggested that it was not possible for evolution to be true in a theistic universe



You don't get to interrogate others for the cause of life's origin until you demonstrate conclusively that it has an origin.


It is becoming clear that you are inadequately equipped to comprehend my arguments.


I know that "knowing why" is not the "sole thing" that I "strive for," so clearly your premise is faulty.

Actually you're just coming off as pompous. I'm not interrogating anyone. I'm simply pointing out YOU or anyone don't know what sparked life, therefore, anything is possible. Unless someone has some scientific fact that says "this is what started life" then it is not fact, presumed correct by a large number of people or not. Improbable does not mean impossible.
 
Last edited:

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Nope, I admitted that I don't know and that I don't discount the possibility that either could be true.

Regardless of how much you think we know, it is not enough to create life nor to prove definitively than life was spun out of a magical primordial soup. Closing your mind to any of the other possibilities is what makes you look like an idiot.

How can you argue that we don't know enough to create life, when we've already created life in the lab setting?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Actually you're just coming off as pompous.
That's only because you are coming off as ignorant.

I'm not interrogating anyone. I'm simply pointing out YOU or anyone don't know what sparked life, therefore, anything is possible.
And I'm simply pointing out that you don't know that life was "sparked" at all. Your "point" is meaningless, therefore. You might as well point out that nobody knows whether or not bigfoot squats when it pees.

Unless someone has some scientific fact that says "this is what started life" then it is not fact, presumed correct or not.
Have you seen anyone here make a statement equivalent to "this is what started life?"
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
How can you argue that we don't know enough to create life, when we've already created life in the lab setting?

Creating life in a controlled lab is not the same as creating it w/o intelligence out of a bunch of random crashing elements. This is why this subject is not as cut and dry as some would have you believe in this thread. I'm not saying I believe in aliens or god. I'm just saying..it's not impossible at this point.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
That's only because you are coming off as ignorant.


And I'm simply pointing out that you don't know that life was "sparked" at all. Your "point" is meaningless, therefore. You might as well point out that nobody knows whether or not bigfoot squats when it pees.


Have you seen anyone here make a statement equivalent to "this is what started life?"

If all you're saying is "life didn't spark, it just always was" then I don't disagree. It's just another possibility. Just like anything I said, the difference is you're trying to call me ignorant, while at the same time acting like anything outside of your beliefs is impossible. That is identical to bible thumpers.
 

T9D

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2001
5,320
6
0
Here is the problem I have with the evolution theory. Now don't even consider creation or anything. Just put that aside and look at it from this standpoint.

There are dinosaur bones all over the place. They dig them up everywhere. Millions of years old. For one everything is already in a finished state. But even besides that. Where the hell are all the other supposed millions of years of NEWER bones from everything inbetween??

They should be digging up thousands and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of bones that are the inbetween stages and even much newer and not as deep down. But they don't. They don't exist. Every single species should be out there in the inbetween stages. Millions of them. They can find an old frog or deer. And an even older frog or deer. And even older ones than that. But nothing inbetween. There should be thousands of versions inbetween. Sure they have a small handful of things they try to piece together. I mean there should be millions of these bones out there.

All I'm saying is that's fine if you want to look at it from strictly a science point of view. But people are treating the evolution theory like the scientists are their religions leaders. Which they are always constantly bickering about facts. And ALWAYS changing back and forth especially about dates and ages. So basically last years info was wrong that you wanted to believe because they changed it again. But last year you defended the info to death. But it was wrong. Then next year they change it again. Meaning you were wrong this year. Then they change it back again.

It's fine to look at the pure science of things, but perhaps look for a better scientific theory then. It honestly just doesn't hold up for what is presented right now.
 
Last edited:

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Here is the problem I have with the evolution theory. Now don't even consider creation or anything. Just put that aside and look at it from this standpoint.

There are dinosaur bones all over the place. They dig them up everywhere. Millions of years old. For one everything is already in a finished state. But even besides that. Where the hell are all the other supposed millions of years of NEWER bones from everything inbetween??

They should be digging up thousands and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of bones that are the inbetween stages and even much newer and not as deep down. But they don't. They don't exist. Every single species should be out there in the inbetween stages. Millions of them. They can find an old frog or deer. And an even older frog or deer. And even older ones than that. But nothing inbetween. There should be thousands of versions inbetween. Sure they have a small handful of things they try to piece together. I mean there should be millions of these bones out there.

All I'm saying is that's fine if you want to look at it from strictly a science point of view. But people are treating the evolution theory like the scientists are their religions leaders. Which they are always constantly bickering about facts. And ALWAYS changing back and forth especially about dates and ages. So basically last years info was wrong that you wanted to believe because they changed it again. But last year you defended the info to death. But it was wrong. Then next year they change it again. Meaning you were wrong this year. Then they change it back again.

It's fine to look at the pure science of things, but perhaps look for a better scientific theory then. It honestly just doesn't hold up for what is presented right now.

They do dig up bones, but we can only see bones from that far back that have FOSSILIZED. A very specific process has to occur for skeletons to be fossilized. Not all skeletons undergo this process.

The difference between a scientist and religious leader is the scientist reports what he sees and invites others to draw a conclusion. They WANT to be proven wrong. A religious leader tells you how they want it to be and then spins observations to that purpose.

Scientific facts may change due to higher resolution equipment being found, but you'll notice finding don't really deviate that much. For instance, we estimated the age of the observable universe to be 15 billion years, then as observations became more advanced it was lowered to 14 billion. We then were able to image the microwave background of the universe giving us an age of 13.7. The recent Plank observatory got a higher res image of the MB and we're now at 13.8 billion years. The more precise the measurement of something, the more accurate the answer will be.

Anyway, science acts the way most reasonable people would live their life: based on the observable facts, you draw a conclusion. Nothing excites a scientist more than being proven wrong about something thought to be established, because they know there is a more interesting answer waiting.
 
Last edited:

maziwanka

Lifer
Jul 4, 2000
10,415
1
0
man there's a lot of confusion about what evolution is in this thread

belief in creationism is like believing in the geocentric theory of the solar system. i love how we're reverting to horseshit (it's like fucking iran)
 

maziwanka

Lifer
Jul 4, 2000
10,415
1
0
They do dig up bones, but we can only see bones from that far back that have FOSSILIZED. A very specific process has to occur for skeletons to be fossilized. Not all skeletons undergo this process.

there's also this weird misconception that everything morphs from a creature to another one - maybe that's because of the old diagram showing monkeys evolving into humans. there are so many different creatures that have lived in the history of the earth and some survive and others don't. he should also keep in mind that it's not that we evolved from chimps but that we shared a common ancestor.

the point is, evolution doesn't require you to find inbetween stages of anything.
 

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
4,767
435
126
It is very much possible for constructing a machine proving evolution.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
Here is the problem I have with the evolution theory. Now don't even consider creation or anything. Just put that aside and look at it from this standpoint.

There are dinosaur bones all over the place. They dig them up everywhere. Millions of years old. For one everything is already in a finished state. But even besides that. Where the hell are all the other supposed millions of years of NEWER bones from everything inbetween??

No offense, but this is simply untrue. They have found plenty of examples of species which are in a stage of transition from one state to another.

They should be digging up thousands and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of bones that are the inbetween stages and even much newer and not as deep down. But they don't. They don't exist. Every single species should be out there. Millions of them. They can find an old frog or deer. And an even older frog or deer. And even older ones than that. But nothing inbetween. There should be thousands of versions inbetween. Sure they have a small handful of things they try to piece together. I mean there should be millions of these bones out there.

You seem to think that all species are perfectly preserved after death. This is simply untrue.

All I'm saying is that's fine if you want to look at it from strictly a science point of view. But people are treating the evolution theory like the scientists are their religions leaders.

Except that nobody treats scientists as religious leaders. In fact it's the opposite. Science goes by what is the best current way to explain something. If someone in the world of science came up with a better theory, and it's proveable, then that theory is now the de-facto standard. Evolution has held up for a very long time with literally thousands of scientists trying to disprove it or explain it further. It holds up because of several key features:

A) Evidence. We can see it in action, and we can see proof of it in action from the past. In fact every single new fossil that is discovered further adds to it.
B) It works. We have created things that modern people take for granted, e.g. medicine, from our understanding of evolution.
C) Predictions. We can make predictions from what we know to further find out more about it.

Which they are always constantly bickering about facts. And ALWAYS changing back and forth especially about dates and ages. So basically last years info was wrong that you wanted to believe because they changed it again. But last year you defended the info to death. But it was wrong. Then next year they change it again. Meaning you were wrong this year. Then they change it back again.

That's the nature of science - constantly trying to get better. Religion is the opposite - you have one thing stated, and anything that disputes it is ignored. The system of science is such that debating is encouraged, which means that any theories out there have to stand up against a very rigorous set of tests in order to prove itself.

It's fine to look at the pure science of things, but perhaps look for a better scientific theory then. It honestly just doesn't hold up for what is presented right now

If you have a better theory, you are more than welcome to challenge the existing theory. That's the beauty of science. It does hold up, and it is provable, observable, and you can make predictions from it. That is why it holds up.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
If all you're saying is "life didn't spark, it just always was" then I don't disagree. It's just another possibility. Just like anything I said, the difference is you're trying to call me ignorant, while at the same time acting like anything outside of your beliefs is impossible. That is identical to bible thumpers.

Look, when I say:

Not everything in the universe must have a "reason why," and the absence any knowledge of a "reason why" X happened does not invalidate our knowledge that X happened.

And in response you say:

Actually..yes it does.

And go on to say:

To use your example "X" may not be known and until it is solved it is still "X". If it were actually known it wouldn't be called a variable. Until it is no longer "X" it is still hypothesis/theory.
I am left with nothing else to conclude but that you simply do not understand the arguments presented to you.
 

DoctorA

Junior Member
Feb 14, 2012
8
0
0
Here is the problem I have with the evolution theory. Now don't even consider creation or anything. Just put that aside and look at it from this standpoint.

There are dinosaur bones all over the place. They dig them up everywhere. Millions of years old. For one everything is already in a finished state. But even besides that. Where the hell are all the other supposed millions of years of NEWER bones from everything inbetween??

They should be digging up thousands and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of bones that are the inbetween stages and even much newer and not as deep down. But they don't. They don't exist. Every single species should be out there in the inbetween stages. Millions of them. They can find an old frog or deer. And an even older frog or deer. And even older ones than that. But nothing inbetween. There should be thousands of versions inbetween. Sure they have a small handful of things they try to piece together. I mean there should be millions of these bones out there.

All I'm saying is that's fine if you want to look at it from strictly a science point of view. But people are treating the evolution theory like the scientists are their religions leaders. Which they are always constantly bickering about facts. And ALWAYS changing back and forth especially about dates and ages. So basically last years info was wrong that you wanted to believe because they changed it again. But last year you defended the info to death. But it was wrong. Then next year they change it again. Meaning you were wrong this year. Then they change it back again.

It's fine to look at the pure science of things, but perhaps look for a better scientific theory then. It honestly just doesn't hold up for what is presented right now.
I've noted that the only people who defend darwinism to the last breath are atheists because it's the main defence they have against their speculations of the chance random world & creation while non-atheists actually are interested in empirical useful knowledge.
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
I've noted that the only people who defend darwinism to the last breath are atheists because it's the main defence they have against their speculations of the chance random world & creation while non-atheists actually are interested in empirical useful knowledge.

uh huh.
god_said_it-301181001_std.jpg
 

MrColin

Platinum Member
May 21, 2003
2,403
3
81
can a scientist practicing science create a conscious being from organic matter?

I can explain exactly how this can be done. A daddy scientist puts his penis inside the mommy scientist's vagina and ejaculates sperm in the general direction of a her fertile egg...

...they then spend the next few years trying to find a school where their child will not be surrounded by religious dipshits so it can learn to think critically.
 

Juddog

Diamond Member
Dec 11, 2006
7,851
6
81
I've noted that the only people who defend darwinism to the last breath are atheists because it's the main defence they have against their speculations of the chance random world & creation while non-atheists actually are interested in empirical useful knowledge.

LOL that you're still concerned with Darwinism - it's already over a hundred years later and we're already developing medicines based upon what he learned.

By all means test your faith against biology though - next time you get sick, and the doctor recommends pretty much any kind of medicine, just say you don't believe in that hocus pocus Darwin-stuff.
 

DoctorA

Junior Member
Feb 14, 2012
8
0
0
LOL that you're still concerned with Darwinism - it's already over a hundred years later and we're already developing medicines based upon what he learned.

By all means test your faith against biology though - next time you get sick, and the doctor recommends pretty much any kind of medicine, just say you don't believe in that hocus pocus Darwin-stuff.
You don't know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is NOT even a minor evidence for darwinism. This may help.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
You don't know what you are talking about. What you are talking about is NOT even a minor evidence for darwinism. This may help.

Who cares about darwinism? Get with the times.

And for fuck's sake if you're going to link to a site purporting to be authoritative on an academic and scientific subject, find one that doesn't sound like it was written by Nigerian that's only spoken English for 10 minutes. "The Darwin's Theory?" Really?

Typical lunkhead religious nut can't figure out why nobody takes him seriously... :rolleyes:
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,444
5,852
146
Bullshit. Science doesn't even know why proteins fold the way they do or why it's so important for them to fold. Without that information, it is patently absurd to insinuate that scientists "are close" to explaining how life and consciousness have started.

The building blocks of life are amino acids, and we have no clue as to why they form or where they came from, and we're about as close to explaining that as we are to traveling to the center of the Sun.

Granted, I suppose there's some possibility that it amino acids formed randomly over billions of years and then learned how to replicate themselves over billions more years. I'd say the probability of it happening again randomly in nature is about as high as there being some sort of "intelligent designer" who crafted our lives as we know it.

Hell, maybe there does exist a different metaphysical universe parallel to our own where beings far more advanced than we are live. And perhaps their understanding of matter and science is sufficiently advanced from our own that they have the capability to bring life into being. Personally, I like the idea of there being a progenetor race, like in Star Trek.

That's not to say that evolution (or, rather, mutation) doesn't occur. A person would have to be a moron to claim that it doesn't. But discounting that someone (let's call it alien) engineered the first life as a possibility for the beginnings of life on this planet pretty much makes you just as much of a close-minded fool.

Nope, I admitted that I don't know and that I don't discount the possibility that either could be true.

Regardless of how much you think we know, it is not enough to create life nor to prove definitively than life was spun out of a magical primordial soup. Closing your mind to any of the other possibilities is what makes you look like an idiot.

Yeah you didn't do that at all. :biggrin:

Same with Impulse, you can't actually discuss anything but you want to try to browbeat people into admitting there's a possibility of whatever you want to believe in so you can keep ignoring everything else and not have to consider your beliefs beyond whatever suits your ignorance.

Its a lot closer than your made up belief that is literally the same as religious people making up deities. You could at least come up with a better explanation, like how did the aliens that planted life get started?

That last part is hilarious considering your posts. While others are discussing, well things that can actually be discussed you're just interjecting your belief and then saying other people are close minded for not agreeing with you.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Here is the problem I have with the evolution theory. Now don't even consider creation or anything. Just put that aside and look at it from this standpoint.

There are dinosaur bones all over the place. They dig them up everywhere. Millions of years old. For one everything is already in a finished state. But even besides that. Where the hell are all the other supposed millions of years of NEWER bones from everything inbetween??

They should be digging up thousands and thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of bones that are the inbetween stages and even much newer and not as deep down. But they don't. They don't exist. Every single species should be out there in the inbetween stages. Millions of them. They can find an old frog or deer. And an even older frog or deer. And even older ones than that. But nothing inbetween. There should be thousands of versions inbetween. Sure they have a small handful of things they try to piece together. I mean there should be millions of these bones out there.

All I'm saying is that's fine if you want to look at it from strictly a science point of view. But people are treating the evolution theory like the scientists are their religions leaders. Which they are always constantly bickering about facts. And ALWAYS changing back and forth especially about dates and ages. So basically last years info was wrong that you wanted to believe because they changed it again. But last year you defended the info to death. But it was wrong. Then next year they change it again. Meaning you were wrong this year. Then they change it back again.

It's fine to look at the pure science of things, but perhaps look for a better scientific theory then. It honestly just doesn't hold up for what is presented right now.

1. Fossils are in fact not common, and many species are never fossilized, or who fossil is so rare it has yet to be found. Every fossil we can be thought of as being transitional, a small transition.

2. If you want to see a clear proof of the relationship between birds and dinosaurs look at these dinosaurs:

20070807062030%2521Rahonavis_BW.jpg


5-Microraptor.jpg


Jinfengopteryx_wiki.jpg