Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Scientific Proof Against Evolution, intresting website.


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
http://www.scientifi...es/default.aspx

As you many already know, I am not relgious observant anymore ( I rather consider myself atheist or agnostic) still evolution never fully convinced me.

Edited by Italian Ufo, 13 November 2012 - 07:26 AM.


#2
Craven

Craven

    Elephant in the forest

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,325 posts
  • LocationPoland, Cracow
TL,DR I'm quite sure if it was anything worth taking look at I'd read about it on sciencedaily or io9.com. But you can sum it up for us. I'm more interested about your doubts - what is not convincing about evolution for you? Numbers/odds of natural selection?
"I walk alone and do no evil, having only a few wishes, just like an elephant in the forest."

"Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone."

#3
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
Several arguments. .I am about to go to sleep I have been awake all night...I "suffer" of insomnia lol, We will talk about evolution sometimes.

#4
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,130 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.
I'm sorry man, I really did try to read a ways in. I even got past the 'If evolution makes things more complex, then why is the three toed supposed anscestor of the horse turned into something with a simpler one toe design to it's hoof?' I just can't stand selective understanding touted as superior reasoning. Specialized function development is a process or increasing complexity of 'design', not of structure. I got as far as religion has it's own way of knowing, and had to write it off. The person uses vagueries of language and ingrained belief systems to always be just outside of the light of reason. I am a person of spiritual belief but I do not see any reason why I shouldn't accept evolution as a viable working understanding of the mechanisms of life. People who argue against it on statistical basis clearly know nothing about statistics. Statistically a coin flipped ten times will be heads half the time. The statistics do not mean it's not possible to have seven heads, out of ten, or even seven consecutive heads occur. It just means that is you repeat the experiment hundreds of times your average will follow the statistics. Likewise claiming that bones from differing levels of evolutionary development of a species occuring in different areas of the world as a flaw in evolution is a clear failure to even realize that the girl I had a crush on in highschool now lives thousands of miles away within a single lifetime, and somehow animals are supposed to die one on top of each other for all time? Or the idea of say survival of the fittest cannot account for symbiosis or cooperative behaviours. Really, so you're saying that cooperation has helped some survive and it doesn't occur to you that the ability of cooperation constitues a factor of fitness? It's completely loaded with logical falicies, and inability to grasp concepts foriegn to his thinking based on the great revelation of the bibles literal truths. And many of the foundations of his arguments, based on written works have been addressed successfully in the past. The need to oppose evolution in it's entirety for no other reason than feeling that it contradicts what you believe to be the real truth is crappy logic and not science at all. Reason wouldn't bother arguing against evolution only testing it until it breaks at a point and finding a way to account for the break and modify the base form until it works again and then testing it til it breaks again. Not using a book that is several thousand years older than modern science to counter with.
Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#5
Caiman

Caiman

    Funky Duck

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England
This is some of the most nonsensical and dishonest rubbish I’ve ever wasted my time reading. Do yourself a favour and avoid websites like this and pick up some real books on the matter which actually present educated, peer reviewed studies.

Whilst there are a multitude of scientific journals online (and elsewhere) giving detailed analysis and results of over a century of study and experiment in this field, you could get started in seeing why evolution is one of the most successful theories ever posited by science by taking the time to read some of the following popular science books.

Why Evolution is true

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Your Inner Fish

The Ancestor's Tale

~Jon


#6
zEVerzan

zEVerzan

    Orange Animating Android

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,743 posts
  • LocationSome Underground Sweatshop Probably
Those who don't understand evolution are the only kinds of people who have problems accepting it as the truth. That website is bullshit and doesn't do anything to disprove evolution. Evolution is based on three intrinsic properties of life: 1: Everything dies. 2: Organisms that are unsuited to their environment are more likely to die. 3: Organisms that live on to reproduce will pass their genes and the offspring will be slightly different. Take these three properties, add time and different environments, and we get the biodiversity we see today here on Earth.
I always imagined the future as a time of more reason, empathy, and peace, not less. It's time for a change.
Attention is currency in the "free marketplace of ideas".
I do other stuff besides gripe about the future! Twitter Youtube DeviantArt +-PATREON-+

#7
FutureLover1999

FutureLover1999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts
You're not religious, but you had some doubts about evolution. So to clear up your misunderstandings you decided to study some weird article written by a creationist in which most of his arguments he backs up with evidence from bible quotes? Then you decided to share this with everyone here to enlighten us about evolution's major problems? I'm confused, are you a creationist or not? This was one of the most ridiculous tihngs I've ever attempted to read.

#8
Avanti

Avanti

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 100 posts
I kinda like the UFO. he's both far left and far right at the same time, and he's also believing in birther claims and creationism. he seems like he is believing everything.

#9
Logically Irrational

Logically Irrational

    For Lack of a Better Name

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • LocationHoover Dam
My biggest problem with the site is that more than half of the stuff doesn't even address evolution. A lot of it has to do with the origin of life, which is not part of the theory of evolution. Then it talks about all the supposed arguments that "evolutionists" make against Christians (that they thought the sun revolves around the earth or that the bible is just fantasy stories, etc.), as if that somehow refutes the scientific arguments that they make. I mean, this goes beyond scientific skepticism. This is straight young earth creationsim, which doesn't just reject evolution. It rejects huge chunks of other fields as well, including archaeology, anthropology, astronomy, biology, genetics, geology, cosmology, hydrology...

Listen to the logic behind why this guy believes in a young earth:

Most of the Christian writings that I’ve studied think that man was created within the last 10,000 years. Some believe that the earth is anywhere from 8,000 years old to 40,000 years old, & which I pretty much agree. Why would God waste billions of years, just to prepare for humanity?


Essentially, "I can prove that the Bible is right about the age of the earth, because if it isn't right, then it would be wrong."

I don't think the author of this site really has a firm grasp of science. He refers to scientists "reformulating the laws of nature" when they discover something new. Obviously, the laws of nature don't change, our understanding of them does. He also continually conflates belief with scientific knowledge. A lot of the aspects of evolution that are supposed to be refuted here aren't even aspects of evolution at all. Most of them are just what this guy thinks evolution says. "This is what evolution seems like to me. My impression doesn't make sense. It then follows that evolution doesn't make sense." The only thing it proves is that the author doesn't actually understand what he's trying to debunk.

I always enjoyed analyzing this type of thing, so I'll probably be back for more later.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

#10
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

This is some of the most nonsensical and dishonest rubbish I’ve ever wasted my time reading. Do yourself a favour and avoid websites like this and pick up some real books on the matter which actually present educated, peer reviewed studies.

Whilst there are a multitude of scientific journals online (and elsewhere) giving detailed analysis and results of over a century of study and experiment in this field, you could get started in seeing why evolution is one of the most successful theories ever posited by science by taking the time to read some of the following popular science books.

Why Evolution is true

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Your Inner Fish

The Ancestor's Tale


Caman, I do read scientific books. While this website may contain some dedebatle arguments (many thinkgs are seen from a relgious prespective), it also speaks about things we can not still prove scientifically..
i also think that is a scientific approch to challange theories... who dosen't do so is not any different of a religious fanatic.
but i did have this conversations many times. theory vs principle especially in the field of evolution and the debate was just a waist of time. so i will pass.

Edited by Italian Ufo, 13 November 2012 - 06:07 PM.


#11
Logically Irrational

Logically Irrational

    For Lack of a Better Name

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • LocationHoover Dam
What would be some examples of things from the site that can't be proved scientifically?
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

#12
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

What would be some examples of things from the site that can't be proved scientifically?


what I am going to do list one by one.? i heard different prespectives on evolution issues...and while i tend to be open to all opinion evolution still didnt convince me. (full stop).

#13
Logically Irrational

Logically Irrational

    For Lack of a Better Name

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts
  • LocationHoover Dam
Not a full list. Just one or two. I'm just curious which aspects haven't convinced you.
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

#14
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts
ok, i am out to gym...when i come back i will write. I promise.

#15
Caiman

Caiman

    Funky Duck

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 952 posts
  • LocationManchester, England

Caman, I do read scientific books. While this website may contain some dedebatle arguments (many thinkgs are seen from a relgious prespective), it also speaks about things we can not still prove scientifically..
i also think that is a scientific approch to challange theories... who dosen't do so is not any different of a religious fanatic.
but i did have this conversations many times. theory vs principle especially in the field of evolution and the debate was just a waist of time. so i will pass.

There is an enormous gulf between challenging a hypothesis or theory intelligently and in a manner worth considering versus spouting the kind of nonsense presented on that website. Science doesn't care about things that cannot be proven scientifically, that belongs to philosophy.

As the quote goes... Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

~Jon


#16
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,206 posts
  • LocationLondon

http://www.scientifi...es/default.aspx

As you many already know, I am not relgious observant anymore ( I rather consider myself atheist or agnostic) still evolution never fully convinced me.



Posted Image

#17
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts


Caman, I do read scientific books. While this website may contain some dedebatle arguments (many thinkgs are seen from a relgious prespective), it also speaks about things we can not still prove scientifically..
i also think that is a scientific approch to challange theories... who dosen't do so is not any different of a religious fanatic.
but i did have this conversations many times. theory vs principle especially in the field of evolution and the debate was just a waist of time. so i will pass.

There is an enormous gulf between challenging a hypothesis or theory intelligently and in a manner worth considering versus spouting the kind of nonsense presented on that website. Science doesn't care about things that cannot be proven scientifically, that belongs to philosophy.

As the quote goes... Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.


thanks for informing me about all this, i didnt know. ....!
while the article is relgious based, there are also some questions that may be relevant even for atheist scientist...
but honestly i don't have the energy for this debate anymore. it may really be the last time i post here something against evolution.
no one seems to challange the theory..and of theory we are talking.

#18
wjfox

wjfox

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,206 posts
  • LocationLondon
Evolution is a 100% fact.

#19
Kombaticus

Kombaticus

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
Gravity is a theory, but you don't see anyone challenging that, do you? Sorry bud, this seems like nonsense to me.

Edited by Kombaticus, 13 November 2012 - 07:57 PM.

"Let teachers and priests and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is an illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and I am content." -Conan the Cimmerian


#20
Italian Ufo

Italian Ufo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,190 posts

Gravity is a theory, but you don't see anyone challenging that, do you?

Sorry bud, this seems like nonsense to me.


I know very little about gravity but if you look on the web it seems that there are people who challange it or re-think about it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users