Evolution is a hoax

[mOgliE]

By the way, there is something I don't understand.

If you believe evolution is a hoax, does that mean humans have always existed? Or where do we come from?

[Astargath]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

HE WONT ADMIT ANYTHING EVER. I showed him statistics plenty of times and he never admits to be wrong, he is a delusional idiot, nothing to do with him.

[ATMD]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

I think the key phrase is "Even if"

[mOgliE]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

I think the key phrase is "Even if"

I'm trying to go step by step...
First he says "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" so I want to at the very least make him admit that he was wrong (probably just lying) and that the very vast majority do agree on the evolution theory.

Then we'll try to explain him why 97% of the scientists of the world are very unlikely to be wrong...

[ATMD]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

I think the key phrase is "Even if"

I'm trying to go step by step...
First he says "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" so I want to at the very least make him admit that he was wrong (probably just lying) and that the very vast majority do agree on the evolution theory.

Then we'll try to explain him why 97% of the scientists of the world are very unlikely to be wrong...

Lennox's explanation shows how evolution and God are perfectly compatible. Here's his quote.

"The success of science sometimes leads people to think that because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe, then we can safely conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place. This reasoning commits a logical error in that it confuses mechanism and agency.

Consider a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone who was seeing one for the first time and who knew no science might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. He would also see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working; his grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be enough to do that. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine worked made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand. It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it."

[mOgliE]

Lennox's explanation shows how evolution and God are perfectly compatible. Here's his quote.

"The success of science sometimes leads people to think that because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe, then we can safely conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place. This reasoning commits a logical error in that it confuses mechanism and agency.

Consider a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone who was seeing one for the first time and who knew no science might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. He would also see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working; his grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be enough to do that. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine worked made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand. It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it."

I don't know a single scientist that have ever said that we know there is no God.

You can't prove that there is no God.
It doesn't make sense, could you prove there are no dragons? No unicorns?

But it's not because there is no proof of God that it means there is a God. You're free to believe God created the world this way and the evolution. Sure. Why not?

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

[ATMD]

I don't know a single scientist that have ever said that we know there is no God.

You can't prove that there is no God.
It doesn't make sense, could you prove there are no dragons? No unicorns?

But it's not because there is no proof of God that it means there is a God. You're free to believe God created the world this way and the evolution. Sure. Why not?

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

Yes but I think the key issue is in the claim that the mechanisms of evolution are via random, unintelligent forces rather than the mastermind of an intelligent designer. Astargath and I discussed about the central issue of abiogenesis earlier, and I repeat the following.

You are perfectly right, abiogenesis is a very difficult problem to solve. I will take it one step further. Even if scientists could one day find a way to synthesize life from inorganic materials, it would only be evidence that life could exist from non-life, however it still can not be evidence that life could exist from randomness. Those scientists doing the experiment would resemble intelligent design, they would act as agency in the way God acts to create life from inorganic substances via natural albeit carefully designed procedures. The only way to show that intelligent design is unnecessary is to simply put the inorganic materials together randomly and leave the laboratory, and then one day come back to find those substances alive.

To me, it seems like DNA or "the book of life" is much more complex than the most sophisticated Shakespeare, and I find it difficult to believe that this book could have been written to perfection (for life to occur) by random, unintelligent processes.

[mOgliE]

Yes but I think the key issue is in the claim that the mechanisms of evolution are via random, unintelligent forces rather than the mastermind of an intelligent designer. Astargath and I discussed about the central issue of abiogenesis earlier, and I repeat the following.

I don't want to minimize your discussions or arguments but it's extremely pointless.

Facts are:
-Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact of how species evolve
-Evolution occures mainly by small changes of DNA that are, or not, selected in the specie

Now that those small changes are random or the will of a superior being... Is not a rational debate. Because you can't prove neither of the two possibilities.

It can be God. It can be random. No one will ever prove one or the other. How could it be possible?

Though I have a question: if evolution is God's will, why is that that some changes are useless and are given up? Not all genes are passed up to the next generation. If Evolution was conducted by the hand of God, why would he put imperfect genes that are doomed to be given up during evolution process?

[af_newbie]

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

I think the key phrase is "Even if"

I'm trying to go step by step...
First he says "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" so I want to at the very least make him admit that he was wrong (probably just lying) and that the very vast majority do agree on the evolution theory.

Then we'll try to explain him why 97% of the scientists of the world are very unlikely to be wrong...

Lennox's explanation shows how evolution and God are perfectly compatible. Here's his quote.

"The success of science sometimes leads people to think that because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe, then we can safely conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place. This reasoning commits a logical error in that it confuses mechanism and agency.

Consider a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone who was seeing one for the first time and who knew no science might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. He would also see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working; his grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be enough to do that. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine worked made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand. It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it."

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

All this mental gymnastics does it creates more questions (who, what, when, how, why etc).

It is better not to invent mythical figures and look at the problem rationally.  How did multicell life originate?  Probably as a freak accident, one single protocell fused with another and this resulted in new internal organelles.  How did a single protocell organism form? Probably as a means to optimize chemical reactions.

How did the Big Bang started?  We don't know for sure.  Probably it was caused by random quantum fluctuations that caused a significant decrease in entropy, causing positive feedback which resulted in the Big Bang.  See Poincaré recurrence theorem.  Maybe our universe always was and always will be in one form or another, doing Big Rip/Big Bangs every 10^10^10^10^56 years.

A bigger, non-scientific question is why does universe or cosmos exist at all?  I am sure religions will give you a lot of cop-out answers to that question.

[ATMD]

Facts are:
-Evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact of how species evolve
-Evolution occures mainly by small changes of DNA that are, or not, selected in the specie

Now that those small changes are random or the will of a superior being... Is not a rational debate. Because you can't prove neither of the two possibilities.

It can be God. It can be random. No one will ever prove one or the other. How could it be possible?

Though I have a question: if evolution is God's will, why is that that some changes are useless and are given up? Not all genes are passed up to the next generation. If Evolution was conducted by the hand of God, why would he put imperfect genes that are doomed to be given up during evolution process?

Good questions.

Evolution is still a theory for how different species arise, there is no evidence for that, and I find this is really important. We still need to be able to observe speciation in action in a laboratory or research facility to provide evidence for that. Personally I would like to see it too as I view this as being the ultimate proof for macro-evolution. Yes I know the process is slow and takes millions of years but this is why the mechanism is not testable nor falsifiable.

[ATMD]

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

This personal creator is eternal, always in existence, no point of origin.

[af_newbie]

Even if you assume that everything you (or Lennon, or any other schmuck) says is true (which you cannot prove), it still does not answer a question who created your personal Creator?  

This personal creator is eternal, always in existence, no point of origin.

Okey, dokey.  Problem "solved". 

Thanks, genius.

[mOgliE]

Good questions.

Evolution is still a theory for how different species arise, there is no evidence for that, and I find this is really important. We still need to be able to observe speciation in action in a laboratory or research facility to provide evidence for that. Personally I would like to see it too as I view this as being the ultimate proof for macro-evolution. Yes I know the process is slow and takes millions of years but this is why the mechanism is not testable nor falsifiable.

You mean how new species appear?

Well that's quite easy and has been largely proved...

Best example would be the chicken, easy and you know what it is today.

Chicken comes directly from reptiles just like all the other birds we know. How do we know that? Here is how we proceed:

-First we inventorize all the different species we can find
-Then we date them to be able to make a chronological timeline of the species
-Afterthat we try to regroup the species having common physical caracteristics
-Ultimately when we suspect there is a lineage between two or more species we check their DNA to see if one has indeed the genetic legacy of the other

Here is a more complete analysis of the reptile timeline for example and how we see that one is the descendant of the other: http://www.snakegenomics.org/CastoeLab/Publications_files/Shaney_etal.BookChapter.pdf

If that's not evolution... Then how did the chicken appear? It didn't exist 40 millions year ago so how did it appear all of a sudden if that's not evolution?

[Astargath]

I don't know a single scientist that have ever said that we know there is no God.

You can't prove that there is no God.
It doesn't make sense, could you prove there are no dragons? No unicorns?

But it's not because there is no proof of God that it means there is a God. You're free to believe God created the world this way and the evolution. Sure. Why not?

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

Yes but I think the key issue is in the claim that the mechanisms of evolution are via random, unintelligent forces rather than the mastermind of an intelligent designer. Astargath and I discussed about the central issue of abiogenesis earlier, and I repeat the following.

You are perfectly right, abiogenesis is a very difficult problem to solve. I will take it one step further. Even if scientists could one day find a way to synthesize life from inorganic materials, it would only be evidence that life could exist from non-life, however it still can not be evidence that life could exist from randomness. Those scientists doing the experiment would resemble intelligent design, they would act as agency in the way God acts to create life from inorganic substances via natural albeit carefully designed procedures. The only way to show that intelligent design is unnecessary is to simply put the inorganic materials together randomly and leave the laboratory, and then one day come back to find those substances alive.

To me, it seems like DNA or "the book of life" is much more complex than the most sophisticated Shakespeare, and I find it difficult to believe that this book could have been written to perfection (for life to occur) by random, unintelligent processes.

Well, that's because us humans are not intelligent enough or our brains aren't good enough to comprehend certain things. We know however that complexity can arise from very very simple rules. To you it might seem that life needs a creator or intelligent designer but the reality might be different, evidence certainly suggests so.

[ATMD]

You mean how new species appear?

Well that's quite easy and has been largely proved...

Best example would be the chicken, easy and you know what it is today.

Chicken comes directly from reptiles just like all the other birds we know. How do we know that? Here is how we proceed:

-First we inventorize all the different species we can find
-Then we date them to be able to make a chronological timeline of the species
-Afterthat we try to regroup the species having common physical caracteristics
-Ultimately when we suspect there is a lineage between two or more species we check their DNA to see if one has indeed the genetic legacy of the other

Here is a more complete analysis of the reptile timeline for example and how we see that one is the descendant of the other: http://www.snakegenomics.org/CastoeLab/Publications_files/Shaney_etal.BookChapter.pdf

If that's not evolution... Then how did the chicken appear? It didn't exist 40 millions year ago so how did it appear all of a sudden if that's not evolution?

I saw the paper m0gliE, I'm not sure how it serves as evidence that chickens came from snakes. When you mentioned 40 million years ago, it reminds me that science has not even come up with an accurate dating technology. There are so many flaws in the carbon dating method it seems incredible to believe in its credibility anymore. I want science to be able to objectively and accurately date rocks and fossils as much as anyone, but it is greatly lacking.

Why do you find carbon dating method accurate? Is there any evidence to validate this method?

[ATMD]

Well, that's because us humans are not intelligent enough or our brains aren't good enough to comprehend certain things. We know however that complexity can arise from very very simple rules. To you it might seem that life needs a creator or intelligent designer but the reality might be different, evidence certainly suggests so.

The evidence also shows the opposite. We humans are highly complex beings and we create books, music, art, technology etc. these could be "evidence" that simple can also arise out of complexity. We are infinitely more complex than a simple book, why can't this be used as support for intelligent design?

[mOgliE]

I saw the paper m0gliE, I'm not sure how it serves as evidence that chickens came from snakes. When you mentioned 40 million years ago, it reminds me that science has not even come up with an accurate dating technology. There are so many flaws in the carbon dating method it seems incredible to believe in its credibility anymore. I want science to be able to objectively and accurately date rocks and fossils as much as anyone, but it is greatly lacking.

Why do you find carbon dating method accurate? Is there any evidence to validate this method?

you mean apart from the basic way radiology works? Oo

Carbon dating is accurate as hell and I can't really see how you can say otherwise.

By the way it's not Carbon dating that is used for prehistoric dating, Carbon dating allows you to go back in time to less than a million years if I remember correctly.

But radioactive dating is extremely precise simply because of the way it works...

There is an amount X of each radioactive elements in everything. Once it's dead and underground this radioactive element stop being produced. So when you want to date it, you count the amount of radioactive element and thus you know how much is missing. Since you know what times it take to get rid of the radioactive element you can date it...

That's extremely simple, what is the problem for you with it?

[ATMD]

you mean apart from the basic way radiology works? Oo

Carbon dating is accurate as hell and I can't really see how you can say otherwise.

By the way it's not Carbon dating that is used for prehistoric dating, Carbon dating allows you to go back in time to less than a million years if I remember correctly.

But radioactive dating is extremely precise simply because of the way it works...

There is an amount X of each radioactive elements in everything. Once it's dead and underground this radioactive element stop being produced. So when you want to date it, you count the amount of radioactive element and thus you know how much is missing. Since you know what times it take to get rid of the radioactive element you can date it...

That's extremely simple, what is the problem for you with it?

Yes thanks, I mean both methods actually. I understand the concept of half life and counting backwards but is there evidence that it has been used to date something accurately? How do we know this rock is 10 millions years old, for example. How do we prove that the radioactive method dated it accurately? Radioactive method says it should be 10 million years old, but how do we know this reading to be definitely true?

[mOgliE]

Yes thanks, I mean both methods actually. I understand the concept of half life and counting backwards but is there evidence that it has been used to date something accurately? How do we know this rock is 10 millions years old, for example. How do we prove that the radioactive method dated it accurately? Radioactive method says it should be 10 million years old, but how do we know this reading to be definitely true?

Well it's easy:

-If half life measurement is right then it means datation is right?
-If half life measurement is false it means we misunderstood how radioactivity works right?

Then how comes radioactivity works perfectly in all the millions of way we're using it daily (especially on medical field) for scanners, IRM, radiology, radiation therapy and all?

We know it's accurate because if it was not it would mean we understood badly radiation and we couldn't use it as precisely as we are doing right now.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

[ATMD]

Well it's easy:

-If half life measurement is right then it means datation is right?
-If half life measurement is false it means we misunderstood how radioactivity works right?

Then how comes radioactivity works perfectly in all the millions of way we're using it daily (especially on medical field) for scanners, IRM, radiology, radiation therapy and all?

We know it's accurate because if it was not it would mean we understood badly radiation and we couldn't use it as precisely as we are doing right now.

I'm not sure I understand your concern.

I am perfectly fine with the logic, it is the verification that I wonder.

Let me give an illustration. let's suppose I grow apples. I picked an apple and keep it with me for three days. Then I go to a scientist and asks him to date my apple, the scientist uses some scientific method and says my apple is about three days old. I can verify it to be true because I grew and picked the apple myself. This is an example of a dating method that is verifiable.

Now I give a rock to the scientist and asks him to date the rock, he says it is 10 million years old, how can I know whether his method is really accurate? It cannot be verified by anyone whether it is true or not.