evolution... again
2. math - lets say we've been here 1million years, & that our population doubles every 7,000 years (starting at 2). which means by now earth should have this population.
5,575,186,299,632,660,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (2^142)
at this moment im not saying the Man in the sky brought us here, but i am saying there is a problem with evolution & the timeline.
i'd also like to pose the question "if" evolution is wrong & creationism doesn't have its ducks in a row, what else is there?
we seem to have different fields of study that have came into their own independently, if our facts where straight the ifo. & evidences if true would seamlessly cross over & support another subject of study. why is it not always the case?
Also I am willing to believe that evolution is correct, but I find it very sad that people are judging other aspects of nature based off of assumptions and stereotypes. Pretty sure if evolution faced what religion faces, they would not be teaching it in schools right now.
Skeptics rip apart theism all the time without mercy, one mention of not wanting to be related to monkeys and a skeptic will go literal ape shit on the ignorant.
I guess the religion types could go literal God smack down on skeptics, but it just makes the skeptics even more bitter towards religion and the topic of God. *shrugs*
... you mean like you already do?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
It's foolish. 
Well a decent BR-rip will be significantly smaller than a comparable DVD-rip, but will generally always offer better picture quality. Moral of the story: amount isn't everything.
Things are actually more complicated than that when it comes to evolution, but we aren't losing any genetic data.
As for there being no documented cases of a beneficial mutation that could be passed on... Well. WRONG. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered…
2. math - lets say we've been here 1million years, & that our population doubles every 7,000 years
Except, you know, it doesn't. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
I wonder — where did you pull that math from? You sure you aren't merely trolling?
Wow.
1. Simply not true. The two pairs of chromosomes you get from either parents reshuffles your genetic code to a degree. This mixing of genetic information creates diversity. Diversity protects you from harmful diseases which could otherwise whipe out an entire population. The more genetic diversity in a population, the more likely there is to have a survivors if a plague hits.
2. You're not factoring in the death rate, or the fact that the population didn't start at two, or the fact that population statistics don't work like that.
What else is there? We could be programs in a computer simulation. We could be a fever dream of a space whale.
Evolution is confirmed by genetics, embryology, geology, paleontology, and basically every other field of science that has to do with biology.
2. Don't know where you're getting that math from, haha. There are so many factors to take into account, like birth and death rates, diseases (i.e. causing mass deaths), population control etc
Evolution is happening and has happened. As a scientific theory it's solid. Maybe there are some small niggling discrepancies in the finer details but it's the best explanation we have.
Thanks
Oh? What "scientific" reasons make evolution untenable and somehow elude the notice of people who study biology for a living?
That the majority of scientists agree on something does not make it fact. In fact, many notables (Dr John Sanford, Werner Von Brahn, etc) all rejected evolution due to their studies.
As for philosophy, I would remind you of Aristotles caution that a man schooled in many arts is liable to see the fallacies a specialist would overlook. To say a grounding in philosophy serves no purpose is as saying that a clockmaker doesn't need to know the time. One ultimately will effect the other, or do you believe a scientist never brings preconceptions to the table?
Except when the weight of the evidence so heavily favors an idea.
In fact, many notables (Dr John Sanford, Werner Von Brahn, etc) all rejected evolution due to their studies.
Neither of whom are competent biologists.
Werner von Braun was an engineer; he had no background in biology. Asking his opinion on evolution makes about as much sense as asking Richard Dawkins to offer his opinion on the design of a liquid-fueled heavy lift rocket.
John Sanford seriously proposed that the Earth is less than 100000 years old, even though this is heavily contradicted by everything we know about geology and does not fit with our understanding of genetics (we can trace genetic markers in DNA that are older than 100000 years). Plenty of other models exist with far more evidence behind them than Sanford's ideas and don't require a deity. I would not call him a competent biologist.
As for philosophy, I would remind you of Aristotles caution that a man schooled in many arts is liable to see the fallacies a specialist would overlook.
The only philosophy that is relevant to science is the "philosophy of science" and Occam's Razor. Monism vs. Dualism, Kierkegaard's vs. Sartre's existentialism, and pretty much most of philosophy is irrelevant to science, which depends on empirical evidence.
One ultimately will effect the other, or do you believe a scientist never brings preconceptions to the table?
Science has plenty of experience dealing with bias. That's why we have a thing called peer-review; if bias exists in research, we can correct it and deal with it. This is unlike creationists, who cling to an idea as absolute truth even though science has long proven it to be wrong.
2). You mock Dr John Sanford, a man of great repute an learning, with absolutely nothing to back up your claims ("heavily contradicted by everything we know about geology.") Firstly, I would like you to explain to me why you adhere to the dogmas of Charles Lyell, even when "everything we know about geology" points in the opposite direction. And genetic markers that extend back to 100,000+ years is based mainly on the preconceived assumptions that the persons performing the tests foist upon it, and not any "empirical evidence." And dismissing Dr Sanford as incompetent displays supreme arrogance on your part, especially as you did not even give a half-hearted attempt at refuting him- defamation is a better tactic.
3). So you get to qualify which philosophies can be brought to the table? By the very fact you interpret the "evidence" and give it meaning shows that you have a philosophy. There is calculative thought and there is reflective thought - the two are not at odds. Many times the latter is needed, if subconsciously, to interpret or filter the former.
4). Knock those straw men down, buddy. There's no bias in the scientific world? I just gave you a quote by a well-respected evolutionary scientists stating point-blank that there *is* bias in the scientific world, whether he believes it to be justified or not. It amuses me that your rail vehemently against those proposing an alternative theory and chiding them for "cling(ing) to an idea as absolute truth" while hypocritically having the exact same stance in your own views.
I never said that.
It absolutely makes a difference. Von Braun did not focus on biology or chemistry, ergo his ideas on evolution hold no weight compared to someone who studied either.
You mock Dr John Sanford, a man of great repute an learning, with absolutely nothing to back up your claims
And you mock all the people with equally illustrious careers who contradict him.
Firstly, I would like you to explain to me why you adhere to the dogmas of Charles Lyell, even when "everything we know about geology" points in the opposite direction.
Wait what?
Are you seriously suggesting that the consensus among geologists today is that the Earth is less than 100000 years old and that it was specially created by the War God of the Hebrews? All of the knowledge that you call dogma (oh the irony) is relied upon today to find petroleum in deep wells, make projections about seismic activity, find the approximate location of new fossils, etc.
But go ahead. Find a well-respected university or professional society representing geologists (ala the American Geophysical Union) which has stated that the Earth is very young and that all of the knowledge taught in schools today about geology is wrong. You will come up empty.
And genetic markers that extend back to 100,000+ years is based mainly on the preconceived assumptions that the persons performing the tests foist upon it, and not any "empirical evidence."
Or we've been able to demonstrate that the mutations which produce these markers occur at a predictable rate and have been able to verify this independently. Molecular clock methods are very heavily tested, and any "preconceived assumptions" would be found out very quickly.
So you get to qualify which philosophies can be brought to the table?
Well, science only cares about the empirical evidence, and philosophy does not deal with that, so yes, I can decide a priori which philosophies are relevant.
So, what "philosophical reasons" are there to reject evolution?
Knock those straw men down, buddy. There's no bias in the scientific world?
Oh the irony. I said that science knows how to deal with bias, not that it does not exist. For someone who claims to be Christian you sure seem to love violating the 9th commandment.
It amuses me that your rail vehemently against those proposing an alternative theory and chiding them for "cling(ing) to an idea as absolute truth" while hypocritically having the exact same stance in your own views.
I have never claimed to have the absolute truth, and science never makes that claim. Your side, however, has.
A theory has to be backed by multiple instances of empirical evidence and has to accurately explain a phenomenon. Special creation by a deity has none of those properties, ergo it is not an "alternative theory." The polite term is conjecture (given that no convincing evidence has been forthcoming). If you don't like the idea of creationism being mocked by those who are knowledgeable about biology, show how your idea better fits the current body of evidence than the Theory of Evolution and show how your idea contradicts it, then have it verified by multiple independent investigators. Many have tried, none have succeeded because creationism is a falsehood.
1). Firstly, I did not say that “all scientists” embrace a position opposing the evolutionary theory. You chide me for supposedly breaking the 9th Commandment and then hypocritaclly ascribe words to me which I never said. I stated that the *science* itself, the evidence given by examination and observation, does not confirm the evolutionists’ view, but points in the opposite direction. If you’re going to take the allegedly righteous road, then make sure you’re not dragging the same cart you claim another is.
So let’s analyise some evidence (two far-reaching points), or lack thereof, in regards to your theory. Note that these are done in a more conversational, easily read format than something too technical for an art room chat. Remember: science likes an open mind!
A). Carbon dating.
This is often used to prop up the evolutionary theory, but it’s actually one of the weakest arguments. The amount of certain radioactive isotopes are measured, and the current rates of decay are then placed on them and projected backwards to estimate the age. Problems include: (a). A scientist will be unable to know how much of the element the material contained originally, and (b). the necessity of extrapolating current rates backwards, assuming they remained constant. Clearly very theoretical and not decisive. I recommend the book, “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods” by John Woodmorappe, a very exhaustively researched book cataloguing over 494 geological dating tests.
B). Stratigraphy (Geology). AKA “The Grand Canyon Argument”
This one is also quite easily dismissed, not only because the argument is circular, (evolutionary theory->Grand Canyon->evolutionary theory) one being used to justify the other, but because actual laboratory experiments have displayed findings contradictory to the claims. In fact, I have just finished reading a critique of Guy Berthault by one Mr Alec MacAndrew, which did nothing but attack the demonstratable with a few unverified hypothesis. But to the argument, it is assumed that the sedimentary layers of the earth were laid down one on top of the other over successive time periods, an idea brought to fruition by Charles Lyell. It is well known that Darwin was an admirer of Lyell and that he used his work as a basis for his own. This theory of superposition, the lower rocks being older than the higher, was called into question firstly by Johannes Walther, who found while observing the depositing rates of sediments on the sea shore saw that they were laid down horizontally, rather than vertically, as was supposed. In 1965 Edwin McKee found that a river flood deposited the sediments in exactly the same way, twelve feet in forty-eight hours, in what would have appeared to be a layer of strata thousands of years old. The Mount St Helens eruption, while volcanic, also displayed what appeared to be Lyell’s layers, some over 600 feet deep, even though were laid down in a short time span. In the laboratory, Guy Berthault experimented with how particles settle in different conditions- both wet and dry. He discovered that the particles sort themselves out according to their own sizes forming strata regardless of the speed of sedimentation. The subsequent experiments of Dr Pierre Julian further confirmed this.
Directly related to this is the issue of Lyell’s layers themselves. According to S.A. Austin, a noted geologist, nearly 77% of his “onion-skin earth” lacks more than seven the Lyellian strata systems (70%), 94% lacking three strata systems, and 99.6% lacking at least one system. To him, “The entire geologic column… exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists.”
Another issue against evolution in geology is the abundance of polystrate fossils, typically trees, which jut up through many different layers of strata. There is something quite obvious here.
In conclusion I leave you with the words of paleobiologist RR West, evolutionary scientist: “Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports the theory.”