Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Flaws in Evolution

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by cannabis, Sep 29, 2007.

  1. I've been on the defensive for too long here in S&P. Evolutionists have lashed out at other posters beliefs, so it's time to for me to lash out at the Evolutionist that are convinced that the theory is complete truth and explains all :rolleyes:
    You can cower behind the idea as use it as comfort in your fear that life is insignificant and such. But just acknowledge that there are errors in Evolutionary theory. And considering It can't even explain an origin of life alltogether...Its assurance is limited. Much of Evolution can be considered a stalking-horse for Nuralism, Secular Humanism philosophies rather than 'scientific theory'

    I can't say I'm behind every single thing quoted because it attempts to debunk Evolution as a whole, but what it does is prove that not everything in the theory can be backed up by science and is absolute. There are certain flaws in Evolution as there is in just about every theory.



    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html


    I apologize for the length, and the sad part is I doubt anyone will actually read the entire page due to the overwhelming biased and skeptic opinions...

    :( :( :(

    I'm curious to what people can conjure up as rebuttals and how this is strawman fallacy...
    Science is a self testing institutionalized system, so I fail to see how Evolution is somehow above this self testing process.

     
  2. Hey, you know, if you are interested in debunking Evolution it would help if you knew something about it. Just a thought.
     
  3. It doesn't even begin to make any sense at all whatsoever, and not even the slightest aspect of it can begin to be explained, and even if it were true, the whole thing is horribly corrupt and cruel.
     
  4. Yep, just as I figured...just claims that it's all strawman theory and attacks on intelligent design. Have I promoted intelligent design in this thread? so why are you bringing it up.


    To bad rasta man isn't here...I wonder what Wikipedia.com would say about this.
     
  5. <del>Uh... Dude. No one mentioned ID at all, so what are you basing that off of?</del> - Just noticed the subject of the other post. :p

    Why don't you go to Wikipedia and find out? Also, the idea that R_M was not intelligent and simply copy and pasted from Wikipedia is silly. Keep it up though, make yourself happy by reducing his arguments in a way that can make you feel better about it all.
     
  6. The entire premise of the thread is just wrong, ref:

    First, the socalled lashing is retroactive. Creationists make wild claims, realists correct them. Not out of spite, but to rebute lies and misrepresentation. To my recollection, not a single "Creationism is wrong" thread have been made, but a plethora of "Evolution is wrong". And for some strange reason, all those threads have been made by christian fundamentalists. Hell, Cannabis alone have made 3 threads on this topic just this week. Give it a rest already.

    So again, this is not about science or evolution, but christian dogma that some blindly believe is true despite contrary and massive evidence.

    Why single out evolution by the way? It is not the only fact that contradicts the bible. The earth is not flat for example, yet the bible says so. The sun do not spin around the earth, yet the bible says so. How about starting a thread on how we spherical-earth theory followers got it wrong or how we heliocentric theory accepters is way off mark. I'm sure there is a lot of untapped logical gymnastics just waiting to be used in attacking those wild un-biblical theories.

    Come on?! I need some diversity from all this creationism claptrap.
     
  7. That is a very good point and I will repeat the question. Why not "debunk" all of the science that contradicts the Bible (evolution may not even do that) instead of this focus on evolution? This is an open question to all Creationist's (who wish to answer) by the way.
     
  8. Second law of thermodynamics does not apply here at all. Simply ridiculous.

    I see this again. The assumption that evolution was a linear progression from goo to you. Linear progression was NEVER part of evolution, the finches man.

    I agree that people are lashing out at you, it's disappointing... We can still be friends :0
     
  9. You discredit your entire argument by adding that childish attack on a previous member who is not here to defend himself. Real mature.

    I wonder where mr. cannabis has scuttled off to.. He hasn't stuck his inanities into a thread sicne this post right here.
     
  10. Well he was right, he hadn't mentioned intelligent design at all. And the reason the previous member isn't here to defend himself is because of a childish and much more brutal attack that he felt was necessary to contribute. So it's all fair... if anything, cannabis should try not to stoop to R_M's level of immaturity. But again he's right, nearly all of the support for R_M's arguments came from Wikipedia.
     
  11. When will these evolution threads end? There are other philosophical issues.

    Now back to the point. If someone has a theory that explains the advancement of species (and all of the other things that evolution attempts to explain) that has more supporting evidence than the theory of evolution does, then present it.

    We do not know how the intricacy of evolution could have happened, therefore creationism is true? You have provided something that tries to debunk evolution. Present something that proves creationism.

    Until someone can prove creationism to the level that evolution has been proven the smart thing to do is to work on unfolding the intricacies of evolution. Sure, its flawed. It is still the strongest theory out there so I think its the direction we should go in. Ill stop believing evolution when I see something better.
     

  12. When you stop responding to them.
     
  13. And this would be a problem because...? You realize people link to sources to help support what they are saying, or to explain something that someone misunderstands. Let us assume for a moment that all of his links were from Wikipedia (I remember others) what does that have to do with anything at all? I use Wikipedia, I also use other sites, are my arguments invalid because I link to sources? Would my arguments be more valid if I had none to back up what I say? Seriously... I do not understand what people are trying to say.
     
  14. I think I made a mistake by bringing up the whole wiki thing in his "goodbye" thread. Im not sure if I was the first one to say it, but I think I was...it seems like people jumped on that real quick.

    I stand by most of what I said, although I do regret saying that. I was venting a little bit because I thought he was a total dick for how he left, but I think we should give the wiki references and R.M. references a break.

    Theres no need to bring up someone who isnt here to defend himself. He said his peace, we said ours, and thats the end of it....let it die.
     
  15. No, that's not what I'm saying. Using sources is definitely a good thing if the sources are reputable and valid. But any scholar would agree that Wikipedia is not always valid simply because it is user-edited. Sure, it constantly gets reviewed for accuracy, but there isn't enough man power to ensure that at any given moment, something in an article might be inaccurate. None of my professors have ever allowed Wikipedia to be used in any academic assignment for this very reason. It's the same reason you can't just believe anything you read on the Internet without finding out who it came from. Anyone who wants to can create a website, just like anyone who wants to can edit a Wikipedia article. There have been plenty of instances when I've found something blatantly erroneous in a Wikipedia article that was later corrected.
     
  16. I would love to let it die. Other people will not allow that to happen, however! :p

    Since I do not want to stray off topic for very long, I shall reign it back in by posting the following link... Evolution for Beginners. That should help people start out their journey to understanding it. You cannot let the Creationist's teach it to you, because they do not seem to want to do so honestly. So, learn about evolution, take the time, expend the effort, and afterwards if you still feel like attacking evolution, at least you will have legs to stand on! :)

    This post is not directed at anyone in particular.
    The nice thing about Wikipedia is the huge list of sources at the bottom of the page. You are free to look through them to determine if the information you are getting is correct, which is better than some other sites that can be used as sources, which are light on the sources themselves. Obviously it is not perfect, but then, professional encyclopedias are not perfect. As with everything on the Internet, use caution. I do my best to read through the Wiki page before I use it to ensure it says what it should, to the best of my ability at any rate. I am sure I am not alone in that.

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061127-8296.html
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4840340.stm
     
  17. Thank you for sharing what insight you have.
     
  18. You're right... but I wasn't trying to disrespect or attack Rasta_Man in any way, I was just trying to get my point across about why I think Wikipedia isn't always a valid source. Then again, he did give up the right to defend himself when he made his final outburst. If he wanted to still be here, he could be. But that's all I have to say, I'll end it here.
     

Share This Page