Australian Politics Forum - Evidence of Evolution being a hoax

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #45 - Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:01pm

Yadda, Qualified etymologists have commented and even written papers on the very shoddy examples provided by these creationists. Here is an example:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222112093_Taxonomy_alive_and_kicking_or_...

I can't find a full text version on the web, but here is a typical extract:

Quote:

Of course HY’s scenario is the same here: show a fossil specimen next to a recent one and declare them identical to “prove” that they were. created by god and did not evolve. Evidently, HY made the same sort of errors as illustrated before. Take, for example, p. 237 in V1 where HY shows a bark beetle fossil in amber,stating that “barkbeetles of 25 million years ago were the same as those today...showing that living things did not evolve, but were created”. However, the recent “bark beetle” on p. 237 of V1 is not even a beetle, but a pentatomid stink bug (Notius consputus) (Figure 15; website 9). This belongs to the order Hemiptera or Heteroptera (depending on which taxonomic classification one follows), while beetles belong to the order Coleoptera. If one has doubts that these two orders are fundamentally, different then keep in mind that Hemiptera have a hemimetabolous development (incomplete metamorphosis with egg, nymph and adult), whereas Coleoptera are holometabolous (complete metamorphosis with egg,
larva, pupa and adult).
.........

As I said, it's chalk and cheese, or Gumby and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21819
A cat with a view

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #46 - Oct 25^th, 2012 at 11:06pm

muso wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Yadda, Qualified etymologists have commented and even written papers on the very shoddy examples provided by these creationists. Here is an example:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222112093_Taxonomy_alive_and_kicking_or_...

I can't find a full text version on the web, but here is a typical extract:

Quote:

Of course HY’s scenario is the same here: show a fossil specimen next to a recent one and declare them identical to “prove” that they were. created by god and did not evolve. Evidently, HY made the same sort of errors as illustrated before. Take, for example, p. 237 in V1 where HY shows a bark beetle fossil in amber,stating that “barkbeetles of 25 million years ago were the same as those today...showing that living things did not evolve, but were created”. However, the recent “bark beetle” on p. 237 of V1 is not even a beetle, but a pentatomid stink bug (Notius consputus) (Figure 15; website 9). This belongs to the order Hemiptera or Heteroptera (depending on which taxonomic classification one follows), while beetles belong to the order Coleoptera. If one has doubts that these two orders are fundamentally, different then keep in mind that Hemiptera have a hemimetabolous development (incomplete metamorphosis with egg, nymph and adult), whereas Coleoptera are holometabolous (complete metamorphosis with egg,
larva, pupa and adult).
.........

As I said, it's chalk and cheese, or Gumby and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

muso,

Thanks for your reply.

I'm not big on Latin names, but i will concede that yes, people will view the evidence that is presented re the claims for creation or for evolution, .....depending on the particular 'perspective' [i.e. the bias] that they are viewing that evidence from.

I have no argument with people presenting evidence.

Mostly i have an argument [when i do], with how that evidence is interpreted.

e.g.
From examining some examples that i have come across [which seem to expose a lack of consistency in the results of radio-metric dating], i am very sceptical of the validity of radio-metric dating, which seemingly is used, and accepted, widely in dating fossils.

IMO, relying upon the the validity of radio-metric dating to accurately date fossils, also requires a need in all of us, for a great deal of 'faith', in the integrity of the experts in that field, because of what they are trying to assure us is true and certain.

i.e.
That they can accurately determine the age of a rock [+/- 1 million years or so].

I have no faith in 'experts'.

I'd rather trust the common sense, of common people.
[i.e. people who don't necessarily have any ['external'] driving motivation to come up with a particular determination, to suit their 'clients' 'interests', i.e. reflecting the 'client' relationship which many scientists have with their employer!].

But you go ahead, and believe whatever you want to believe muso.

And i will too.

The only thing which is real, is that which we can see, and feel, and hear.

Nothing is beyond the intellect of men.

Our wisdom shines forth in the world. Tongue

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #47 - Oct 25^th, 2012 at 11:34pm

The biggest obstacle to evolutionary theory is the problem of explaining how meaning could emerge from non-meaning.

Meaning is essentially purposeful. It aims, points at something, it reaches for something, it wants to complete something.

Evolution is essentially non-purposeful - there is no final rest point where it is complete. But in the head of every evolutionist the end point is 'us'. No evolutionist understand or can imagine what it could possibly mean for 'us' to be a link to something else because he cannot possibly imagine anything better than 'us' in evolution, except in terms of 'us' - bigger heads or computers built into our heads or some such nonsense. Evolution cannot think forward, only impose itself on the past. (Like cultural theory)

This is why I think evolution is no less 'miraculous' than the virgin birth or three-persons-of-one-subtance or falling in love or getting a joke.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 25^th, 2012 at 11:39pm by Soren »

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26510
Australia

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #48 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 4:27am

Yadda wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 5:22am:

Funny - when you look @ your pictures they dont look exactly the same . . .

SOB

Other expressed opinions of SPOT,

Quote:

Israel = = killers of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Israel = = human rights abusers and users of Nazi style oppression and torture.

Yadda is a moslem Quack Quack.

America and Israel: Worst terrorist nations in the world.

SPOT,
Quote:

"Funny - when you look @ your pictures they dont look exactly the same . . ."

Funny, if SPOT told me that that bright thing up in the sky was the sun, .....going on the experience of past opinions of SPOT [the 'truth speaker', the 'intellectual'] expressed in this forum, i'd want a second opinion.

'name' = = reputation for integrity, good judgement

Ecclesiastes 7:1
A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.
2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting: for that is the end of all men; and the living will lay it to his heart.
3 Sorrow is better than laughter: for by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better.
4 The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.
5 It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.
6 For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.

You seem to be getting a bit creative with those quotes now yadda. While i agree with the sentiments i didnt say the first 2.

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26510
Australia

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #49 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 4:29am

Yadda wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 10:02am:

Yadda wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 9:50am:

Funny, if SPOT told me that that bright thing up in the sky was the sun, .....going on the experience of past opinions of SPOT [the 'truth speaker', the 'intellectual'] expressed in this forum, i'd want a second opinion.

'name' = = reputation for integrity, good judgement

Ecclesiastes 7:1
A good name is better than precious ointment......

Q.
Do many people on the OzPol forum respect the judgement, the opinions and the behaviour of SPOT, in this forum ???

Have a look for yourself, to ascertain what many peoples opinion of SPOT is on the OzPol forum;

'Spot of Troll'

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1348565349/0#0

Awww poor yadda. its only a couple of you trolls that dont like me - and your socks which makes it look like more. you disagree so you try to get personal. Poor thing cant handle disagreement . . ..

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26510 Australia	Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax Reply #50 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 4:33am Well well well. So soren is a creationist. I should known. Hahahahahahaha. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #51 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:14am

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 11:34pm:

The biggest obstacle to evolutionary theory is the problem of explaining how meaning could emerge from non-meaning.

Meaning is essentially purposeful. It aims, points at something, it reaches for something, it wants to complete something.

Evolution is essentially non-purposeful - there is no final rest point where it is complete. But in the head of every evolutionist the end point is 'us'. No evolutionist understand or can imagine what it could possibly mean for 'us' to be a link to something else because he cannot possibly imagine anything better than 'us' in evolution, except in terms of 'us' - bigger heads or computers built into our heads or some such nonsense. Evolution cannot think forward, only impose itself on the past. (Like cultural theory)

This is why I think evolution is no less 'miraculous' than the virgin birth or three-persons-of-one-subtance or falling in love or getting a joke.

Maybe meaning evolved as the human organism evolved. Maybe there was no meaning in the very early days, and that it only emerged later as human consciousness grew. The more conscious man became of himself and his surroundings, the more urging need he had to understand it all and give an explanation for why he feels as he does.

I think very early human beings were very instinctual, like animals are, and therefore did not "think." Their instincts regulated their behaviour and 'thinking' was not necessarily required. As more pressuring circumstances arose to secure food and shelter, man had to start "thinking" in order how to secure them. As time moves on, their instincts were slowly subdued by an ever growing consciousness. As consciousness grows, the search for meaning comes into the foreground.

Instincts become 'solidified' and become 'fixed ideas.' Fixed ideas (or more commonly known as 'concepts') are merely traces of old instincts and emotions with the 'feeling' completely drained out of them. Language and writing is the medium in which instincts and emotions become expressed and turned into a 'concept.'

Anyway, that's my hypothesis.

Back to top

IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #52 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:21am

Soren wrote on Oct 25^th, 2012 at 11:34pm:

The biggest obstacle to evolutionary theory is the problem of explaining how meaning could emerge from non-meaning.

Meaning is essentially purposeful. It aims, points at something, it reaches for something, it wants to complete something.

Evolution is essentially non-purposeful - there is no final rest point where it is complete. But in the head of every evolutionist the end point is 'us'. No evolutionist understand or can imagine what it could possibly mean for 'us' to be a link to something else because he cannot possibly imagine anything better than 'us' in evolution, except in terms of 'us' - bigger heads or computers built into our heads or some such nonsense. Evolution cannot think forward, only impose itself on the past. (Like cultural theory)

This is why I think evolution is no less 'miraculous' than the virgin birth or three-persons-of-one-subtance or falling in love or getting a joke.

You should really learn about evolution before you start making comments about it.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III Gold Member Offline Posts: 10266 Gender:	Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax Reply #53 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise.
Back to top	IP Logged

bobbythefap1 Gold Member Offline Posts: 7026 Listen now to the rain	Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax Reply #54 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:59am Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am: Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise. Which is exactly what its not meant to do. Its like complaining a car can't fly like an aeroplane.
Back to top	A day without sunshine is like night. IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax Reply #55 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:06pm As fars as evolutinary theory goes, the only "ideal" is perpetuation of the genes. The sum of our achievements are just by-products of adaptations that further (or hinder) the organisms chances of making it happen in a grand play of trial and error.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10266
Gender: male

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #56 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:33pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise.

Which is exactly what its not meant to do.
Its like complaining a car can't fly like an aeroplane.

What is idealism then? How do we explain it?

Back to top

IP Logged

bobbythefap1

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 7026
Listen now to the rain

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #57 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:35pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise.

Which is exactly what its not meant to do.
Its like complaining a car can't fly like an aeroplane.

What is idealism then? How do we explain it?

That's subjective isn't it.
Evolution is not.

Back to top

A day without sunshine is like night.

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #58 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:41pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise.

Which is exactly what its not meant to do.
Its like complaining a car can't fly like an aeroplane.

What is idealism then? How do we explain it?

Ideals are just ways in which our minds are 'tricked' into acting out the imperative of the genes. Name me a commonly held ideal, and it can be traced back to a darwinian principle.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26510
Australia

Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #59 - Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:47pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 12:33pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:59am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Oct 26^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

Soren makes a fair point. The natural sciences can only explain, not idealise.

Which is exactly what its not meant to do.
Its like complaining a car can't fly like an aeroplane.