Fallacies of Evolution

Actually, any discussion about the Christian God is also a discussion about the Jewish and Muslim gods too since they are one and the same. The Hindus don't really complain about evolution and Buddhists don't care as they believe it is all an illusion anyway.

 

What amuses me is those that reject the religious GOD appear to me to do so because if they believed in GOD, it implies they believe to do so, means GOD controls their life. Yet those same types do not mind a bit that their life is controlled by State and indeed they laud the state. I prefer GOD to human beings.

As I said, and this is not about the TOE, but abiogenisis that includes all of the universe. Animal life, plant life, fungus life and more, can be explained using GOD. To see the big bang creating water makes little sense.

 

I have not seen you defend your views. i have no clue what your views are. I realize you hate the GOD concept.

You appear to believe you are engaged in a contest of some sort.

Specifically, what do you believe you challenged me about?

 

That's what I said - a mind closed by religious indoctrination.

I don't claim to know it all. I am constantly learning many things from many sources. I have even learned a lot by being on forums, reading and understanding other's posts and following up with research.

I'll bet you are right. That includes scientists who support a 13.7 billion year old universe and evolution. These religious scientists (most from religious families) have discarded the notion that Genesis is fact. People who argue against these things still take Genesis as literal truth. They have not overcome their childhood religious indoctrination - their minds remain closed.

Some days I just can't catch a break. If you have followed this thread, or just look back a couple of posts, you will see someone criticizing me for referring to gods instead of God.

The other reason I often pose my arguments around the Christian God is because most people arguing against evolution are Christian Fundamentalists. However, I did have a discussion with a fringe Buddhist Flat Earther last year.

I don't believe in a creation event. A creation event implies a Creator. I don't believe in a Creator.

 

OK, you got me there.

"God did it" certainly is an easy answer!!

And, it applies to absolutely everything in equal measure, so you don't even have to read the question!

 

species. (spē'shēz, spē'sēz) A group of organisms having many characteristics in common and ranking below a genus. Organisms that reproduce sexually and belong to the same species interbreed and produce fertile offspring

 

Horses and Donkeys are an example of a new species created from an existing species with a different number of chromosomes.

[Horses and donkeys both belong to the Equus genus of the Equidae family, but genetically, these species have a different number of chromosomes. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes, and horses have 64. Although donkeys and horses are capable of breeding, their genetic inconsistencies result in hybrid offspring that cannot reproduce due to an uneven number of chromosomes,

 

Technically this is correct.

There should be two hypothesis.

A null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis.

In the case of evolution the null hypothesis might be: Organisms evolve and the alternative hypothesis might be: Organisms do not evolve

 

Hypothesis are proven or disproven based on predictions based on the hypothesis.

For example, Watson and Crick predicted the results of X-ray diffraction analysis would be an X if DNA was helical and the results were and DNA is.

 

I realize it is a very simple and highly controversial stand to say GOD did it. But it eliminates many problems.

 

I am curious if this would qualify as an effect or process derived from the theory of evolution? I am fairly sure it could be shown to be incorrect.

 

Sure.

It relieves one of needing to find out how our universe works.

Once we put it all up to God, we can just ignore pretty much anything we want to ignore - all of science, for a start!

 

Are you troubled yet that to date, nobody has a proven concept of the creation of the universe and all living entities on Earth?

I am wary of higher standards imposed on the GOD concept than other concepts.

 

The really exciting thing is that we DON'T know everything.

If we did, natural sciences would be no fun at all. But, we're humans. Humans don't know everything there is to know. There are endless numbers of questions.

Maybe I don't know what you mean by standards, but I would say there are NO standards put on "the God concept". That's the beauty of God. You can make it up as you go and can be as expansive as you choose. We've seen lots of really smart people make interesting progress in philosophy, for example. When you don't want to go any further you can just say "God did it". Science has no way to oppose what you think of God.

So, the only problem I have is when "God logic" gets used as an excuse to ignore what we do know about how our universe works.

With science, we do have standards. Scientific method focuses on rejecting false premises, applying several techniques for doing so.

We should not be ignoring what we know about how our universe works - and that includes what lead does to the brains of children, how our planet collects heat, etc., etc.

After we know how something works, we can decide what (if anything) to do about it. What really drives me over the edge is when we don't allow science to inform public policy decision making. We defund the EPA, because we don't want to know. etc. To me, those who allowed Flint water to fry children's brains need to be in jail. Do you know how little a water filter that removes lead costs? And, now we want to ignore how our planet collects heat!! Why?

So, I do believe that the "God did it" answer helps people ignore what we know about how stuff works - and thus it provides a path to making major and avoidable public policy mistakes.

 

Usfan makes the argument that the TOE is not valid and gives plenty of evidence.

But since you brought up lead, thank you for that, does it impress you that a "bang" not only spit out non toxic elements and also toxic elements? That not just lead, but gasses, inert elements, some radioactive, most not radioactive came forth and yet with all the dangers humans came into being.

I suspect you do believe at one point nothing living was on Earth? Thus there was no particular reason why there is life. Why do you suppose things changed from nonliving to the living planet?

 

That is evidenced by the many different gods that man's imaginings have created.

• Need help with your love life. Create Eros.
• Need the grapes to grow better. Create Dionysus.
• Need good winds for your voyage. Create Jupiter.
• Need to replace a mean nasty god. Create Jesus.
• Need to shift the blame. Create Satan.

 

Only creationists fallaciously assume that there was a "creation event"!

 

In case you missed class when they were teaching Social Sudies 101 We the People formed a government OF the People and BY the People FOR the General Welfare of We the People.

FTR no imaginary deities were harmed in the forming of our government since they were deemed to be unnecessary and irrelevant as to how We the People exercise our freedom to choose how we want to live our lives.

"God did it" is NOT an explanation, it is a puerile cop out to excuse not being willing to learn the difficult subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and one of it's properties is that it is flammable. When it burns it combines with Oxygen to form water. Water is H2O which is two atoms of Hydrogen combined with a single Oxygen atom. This is so elemental a child could grasp it but apparently theists need an imaginary deity to explain why water exists.

 

Duplicate post...no delete option!

 

Actually it just "creates" even more problems.

For instance Cholera killed millions so "god did it", right? A lethal organism that scientists discovered could be eliminated just by boiling water but since "god did it" small children and the elderly must die in agony?

Volcanoes, earthquakes, plagues, tornadoes, deformities, wars, etc, etc are all "god did it" under that simplistic inanity.

 

Ironic given that you are imposing your own fallacious theist "standard" on science.

 

He's a knee jerk reactionary; the evolution gimmick is merely another meme to bash Xians with, that's all, and has nothing to do with science.

 

And as you said, it is a dead end. The result is a mule, an animal which cannot reproduce. An evolutionary dead end.

 

I think that any argument that requires an international conspiracy, should be put in the Conspiracy Theory section. This includes Creationism/ID, anthropogenic climate change denial, and flat Earth theories. Conspiracy Theories cannot be disproved since the very act of disproving them can be viewed as a conspiracy, and any theory that cannot be disproved, is not science.

 

The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis was a totally random process.
Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. There are self-replicating molecules that are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.
Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry.