question for those who reject biological evolution

[Audie]

Do you want to know why I reject it?

1. It's an insult to the human species to think that we went from walking on four legs and scratching our butts all day long to eventually bipedalism where we stopped doing that weird crap... I think. You make the human origin sound humiliating.

2. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. You cannot observe, test, replicate or even falsify evolution which is a clear indicator it's pseudoscience.

3. the egregious Whale Evolution fraud to promote the evolution agenda. The piltdown man was a great hoax back in the early 20th century to promote evolution for a very long time even though it was artifically created by a few con artists. The Nebraska man fossil which turned out to be a pig's tooth. Lucy definitely is a candidate on the evolution fraud list too as she is clearly shown to hang around in trees much more than being on the ground. After all, she died from falling off a tree!

4. No accepted transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwin would still be disappointed to this day.

5. There is no known modern treatment made possible due to human evolution. I don't even know how that could be possible anyway if you read number 2 on my list. All experiments are done at a science lab on 'humans' not fictitious in between human variants which don't even exist. Unless you're fantasizing about how some scientists took a time machine back millions of years and experimented on 'that' in between species of course.

Insult? You insult countless generations of
ancestors by dismissing their very existence
let alone their struggle and pain that made
YOUR life possible. " Oh, God gave it to us. Free "
That we humans became what we are on our own
is properly a matter of pride. Look what we e done!

That you choose to imagine an insult has nothing to do
with fact anyway, so irrelevant.

2. You are wrong. And I believe against forum rules to call it pseudoscience.
We do note the vast arrogance of claiming- with no
perceptible education- to know more than any scientist on earth.
3. What you choose to wrongly call fraud, even IF IT WERE,
has no bearing on whether the theory is correct.

what you falsely call agenda.

But to be fair, there being any number of actual creationist frauds, don't you think that proves creationism
is fake? Or is your only standard a double one?

4. Your choice to claim there are no transitional,fossils doesnt make it so, it makes you a false witness.
Your choice of lying creationist sires for " facts" says it all.

5 doesn't even make sense.

6 You left out the real reason- that you choose to
be ignorant of science, and you choose to believe
your selected cersi9n if what your selected religion says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok and that is true because you say so.

No, and there you go making false claims about others again. You were shown to be wrong by me and others . As usual you simply refuse to understand how and then to make matters worse you make false claims about those that refuted you. This is a consistent pattern of yours.

 

[anotherneil]

I think that’s how that Planet of the Apes documentary started, so we should be careful. Maybe ask Charlton Heston what he thinks.

LOL - documentary.

I'm familiar with the existence of the story, and I've seen some parts of the movie, but I was never into it.

I asked ChatGPT about it; my exact question was: What was the Planet of the Apes about? Was it about genetic engineering, or treatments for illnesses based on genetics?

It responded by saying that La Planète des Singes (The Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle, published in 1963, does explore "themes such as evolution, society, and the consequences of scientific experimentation," but the "original novel doesn't focus on genetic engineering or treatments for illnesses based on genetics. Instead, it explores the idea of a world where the roles of humans and apes are reversed, reflecting on concepts of civilization, intelligence, and power dynamics." However, the movie adaptions starting in 1968 do - ChatGPT also responded by saying that "genetic engineering and experimentation play a more significant role. In these adaptations, the apes' advanced intelligence is often attributed to genetic manipulation or experimentation conducted by humans, which leads to the rise of the ape civilization and the downfall of human society."

Personally I prefer the idea behind the original novel over the approach that the movie adaptations took, because to me that has better drama quality - mainly because too many movies these days seem to rely heavily on having malicious bad guys as the conflict. The original novel is more of a "man v nature", and with the addition of genetic engineering & experimentation, it takes away from the conflict simply being against nature.

Anyhow, individuals not wanting to take a treatment because of a concern of the long-term effects is an interesting issue to explore, but it's not the point of contention in the OP question; it's possible that some such individuals do not reject biological evolution & their acceptance of biological evolution could be the very reason for why they would want to reject such a treatment. Even if they did reject biological evolution, they'd at least still be consistent - unlike someone who rejects biological evolution but would still accept such a treatment for an illness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you want to know why I reject it?

1. It's an insult to the human species to think that we went from walking on four legs and scratching our butts all day long to eventually bipedalism where we stopped doing that weird crap... I think. You make the human origin sound humiliating.

Wow! You just insulted your ancestors. That is quite hypocritcal.

2. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. You cannot observe, test, replicate or even falsify evolution which is a clear indicator it's pseudoscience.

Thank you for telling us that you do not understand the scientific method. You got a bad definition from a lying source. We can observe evolution in multiple ways, you have a flawed definition of "observe". We can test both the general theory and the various hypotheses that make it up in various ways. I can give you examples. And your next error is a rather large one that shows your lack of understanding of the sciences at all. It is not the event that has to be repeatable. It is the evidence that needs to be repeatable. I am sure that you do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence, but I can explain that to you and show you how the evidence is repeatable.

If you follow Answer in Genesis or other creationist sites I can show you how most of them (some of them try to hide it a little bit now, it used to be all of them) are pseudoscience sources.

3. the egregious Whale Evolution fraud to promote the evolution agenda. The piltdown man was a great hoax back in the early 20th century to promote evolution for a very long time even though it was artifically created by a few con artists. The Nebraska man fossil which turned out to be a pig's tooth. Lucy definitely is a candidate on the evolution fraud list too as she is clearly shown to hang around in trees much more than being on the ground. After all, she died from falling off a tree!

Oh my, now you are breaking the Ninth Commandment. And you are using a pseudoscience source. I new that was the case You are also now crossing over into Gish Gallop territory. You should not do that since when you present an argument like that as a whole refuting one refutes them all. Are you sure that you want to do that?

4. No accepted transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwin would still be disappointed to this day.

What are you talking about? Almost every fossil is a transitional fossil. You really need to quit using lying sources.

5. There is no known modern treatment made possible due to human evolution. I don't even know how that could be possible anyway if you read number 2 on my list. All experiments are done at a science lab on 'humans' not fictitious in between human variants which don't even exist. Unless you're fantasizing about how some scientists took a time machine back millions of years and experimented on 'that' in between species of course.

Modern vaccinations rely on the theory of evolution. Number 2 on your list is pure Number 2. You need to do better than that.

Perhaps we should start on the basics of science. What the scientific method actually is, and also what is and what is not evidence.

Would you care to have a discussion on those topics? Or we could go over why even you should be able to understand why your creationist sources are pseudoscience sources. That could save you massive embarrassment in the future.

 

[anotherneil]

My pet peave is the over dependence of biology on black box science; statistical. This dependency is not fully rational but still has an element of hocus pocus, with hocus pocus the very thing that Evolution accuses religion. Neither are 100% rational; both need faith. For example, Evolution begins with the first replicators even though their origins lacks any direct evidence. That is hocus pocus; poof! That is a foundation premise but it is not based on solid fossil evidence. It is similar to the premise of life on other planets due to logic and lottery, but still no proof.

Black box science, which is an empirical form of science can still work, even if the theory is not sound. Empirical data does not have to follow logically from any theory, but rather the theory appears after the output data coming out of a black box. Since we use a black box, you can create an irrational theory that appears to follow the data; albeit, after the fact. Whereas a full logic theory can predict what will happen before you do experiments, since the black is opened first. That is real science, and just science lite.

Alchemy, was the precursor of Chemistry and the Empirical method. They would explain the reactions of atoms into molecules with mythical philosophy. We may think this is old fashion, but that system is very similar to what we till use today in biology. They could predict reactions with that, even though it was not fully rational by modern understanding. This is an artifact of after the fact theory; theory after black box empirical data.

The central topic question was;

I would use these modern medicines. But only after extensive testing, since I would not trust the theory of any company, for a new drug, to be rational enough to go directly to market. They will first need to test in a new and bigger government black box, since their theory came from their own black box, and will not be rational enough for others; "all hail the bigger black box."

They will also have to show all the extra side effects, that their theory did not infer, since many appear only after the bigger black box. I would also need some faith that that treatment includes me in the safe group, and that I will not have to go back to the hospital, since the theory of the bigger black box, did not foresee an extra side effect that took time to appear. There is faith involved in these people with lab coats, who are still practicing medicine. It is not yet opening night; still practicing. It is also what medicine is so expensive; black box cumbersome.

This is how the current consensus theory for evolution appeared. I won't have full faith, until they advance to rational science without side effects.

May I suggest using water as the central variable for biological evolution. Water was there, as part of all the precursors of life reactions. It is still the main variable in terms of the number of molecules; 100 times as many water molecules as the rest in the cell combined. Also the empirical data shows that nothing in cells works without water being present to pack and fold materials and help catalyze reactions.

Water creates this 3-D continuum of hydrogen bonding that is very stabilizing to water. This 3-D water grid is the predominant secondary bonding force in cells. The water continuum leads the rest, to form their minimal energy shapes in water, that allows water to maximize itself. The theory is simple. The sweet spot for the water and its push and pull of the organics, is called life. There is no reason not to advance beyond modern alchemy and bring biology into the future; cell in one variable via water interfaces for any situation.

It seems like you're someone who is more of a general skeptic rather than someone who outright rejects biological evolution, and you're also a skeptic when it comes to what the healthcare industry puts forth as a treatment for an illness. Personally I'm cool with that; I, myself, advocate that people be skeptical (but at the same time, be open-minded) about everything. Basically nothing you say here comes across as hypocritical or inconsistent, particularly regarding treatments for illnesses based on biological evolution.

 

[Tomef]

LOL - documentary.

I'm familiar with the existence of the story, and I've seen some parts of the movie, but I was never into it.

I asked ChatGPT about it; my exact question was: What was the Planet of the Apes about? Was it about genetic engineering, or treatments for illnesses based on genetics?

It responded by saying that La Planète des Singes (The Planet of the Apes) by Pierre Boulle, published in 1963, does explore "themes such as evolution, society, and the consequences of scientific experimentation," but the "original novel doesn't focus on genetic engineering or treatments for illnesses based on genetics. Instead, it explores the idea of a world where the roles of humans and apes are reversed, reflecting on concepts of civilization, intelligence, and power dynamics." However, the movie adaptions starting in 1968 do - ChatGPT also responded by saying that "genetic engineering and experimentation play a more significant role. In these adaptations, the apes' advanced intelligence is often attributed to genetic manipulation or experimentation conducted by humans, which leads to the rise of the ape civilization and the downfall of human society."

Personally I prefer the idea behind the original novel over the approach that the movie adaptations took, because to me that has better drama quality - mainly because too many movies these days seem to rely heavily on having malicious bad guys as the conflict. The original novel is more of a "man v nature", and with the addition of genetic engineering & experimentation, it takes away from the conflict simply being against nature.

Anyhow, individuals not wanting to take a treatment because of a concern of the long-term effects is an interesting issue to explore, but it's not the point of contention in the OP question; it's possible that some such individuals do not reject biological evolution & their acceptance of biological evolution could be the very reason for why they would want to reject such a treatment. Even if they did reject biological evolution, they'd at least still be consistent - unlike someone who rejects biological evolution but would still accept such a treatment for an illness.

It would be a surprise if anyone suspicious of ToE has really thought that through. I know some really smart, genuine, educated people who have a profound belief in god & the Bible. Afaik none of them deny evolution, but they do all have a kind of mental elision when it comes to difficult questions of certain kinds. Like their mind just slides around whatever the question is.

Actually that’s not totally fair, I have one friend who just accepts there are things he’ll never get about it, but has strong faith anyway.

 

[anotherneil]

Do you want to know why I reject it?

1. It's an insult to the human species to think that we went from walking on four legs and scratching our butts all day long to eventually bipedalism where we stopped doing that weird crap... I think. You make the human origin sound humiliating.

2. It doesn't adhere to the scientific method. You cannot observe, test, replicate or even falsify evolution which is a clear indicator it's pseudoscience.

3. the egregious Whale Evolution fraud to promote the evolution agenda. The piltdown man was a great hoax back in the early 20th century to promote evolution for a very long time even though it was artifically created by a few con artists. The Nebraska man fossil which turned out to be a pig's tooth. Lucy definitely is a candidate on the evolution fraud list too as she is clearly shown to hang around in trees much more than being on the ground. After all, she died from falling off a tree!

4. No accepted transitional fossils in the fossil record. Darwin would still be disappointed to this day.

5. There is no known modern treatment made possible due to human evolution. I don't even know how that could be possible anyway if you read number 2 on my list. All experiments are done at a science lab on 'humans' not fictitious in between human variants which don't even exist. Unless you're fantasizing about how some scientists took a time machine back millions of years and experimented on 'that' in between species of course.

You're allowed to reject it, for the purposes of this thread, but what I would like is an answer to the OP question.

 

[Comradio251]

Insult? You insult countless generations of
ancestors by dismissing their very existence
let alone their struggle and pain that made
YOUR life possible. " Oh, God gave it to us. Free "
That we humans became what we are on our own
is properly a matter of pride. Look what we e done!

That you choose to imagine an insult has nothing to do
with fact anyway, so irrelevant.

2. You are wrong. And I believe against forum rules to call it pseudoscience.
We do note the vast arrogance of claiming- with no
perceptible education- to know more than any scientist on earth.
3. What you choose to wrongly call fraud, even IF IT WERE,
has no bearing on whether the theory is correct.

what you falsely call agenda.

But to be fair, there being any number of actual creationist frauds, don't you think that proves creationism
is fake? Or is your only standard a double one?

4. Your choice to claim there are no transitional,fossils doesnt make it so, it makes you a false witness.
Your choice of lying creationist sires for " facts" says it all.

5 doesn't even make sense.

6 You left out the real reason- that you choose to
be ignorant of science, and you choose to believe
your selected cersi9n if what your selected religion says.

So, all you responded with is an immature tantrum, a diatribe that my ancestors would be insulted even though they wouldn't have a clue what you'd be talking about anyway and assumptions that I adhere to a particular religion even though I never stated I belonged to one. Well, I guess that shows you don't have much rationale in your own line of thinking either I guess. I've stated a few sources and you've stated absolutely none as well. How are you to be taken seriously yourself?

2. You are wrong. And I believe against forum rules to call it pseudoscience.

Do you support fascism? And it's true that evolution is pseudoscience by definition. I will reiterate it again for your sake using human evolution as an example to be more specific; it has never been physically observed in real world time by scientists, you cannot replicate the results of what scientists call evolution and nor can you test the 'theory' because of that, you cannot falsify it because there is no logical contradiction you can formulate against it. This is all unlike the Theory of General Relativity which it satisfies. Therefore, it's pseudoscience. That's how the scientific method works. The way you speak fanatically in defense of evolution makes me think evolution is even more so just a belief like any other religion, thank you for that.

I was an academic researcher in the past and contributed to the scientific community in another field. And yes, I deny evolution as do many other logically sound individuals that I've come across. One other thing, please use better grammar when typing, thanks.

 

[Comradio251]

You're allowed to reject it, for the purposes of this thread, but what I would like is an answer to the OP question.

Read my last paragraph in your quote, thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, all you responded with is an immature tantrum, a diatribe that my ancestors would be insulted even though they wouldn't have a clue what you'd be talking about anyway and assumptions that I adhere to a particular religion even though I never stated I belonged to one. Well, I guess that shows you don't have much rationale in your own line of thinking either I guess. I've stated a few sources and you've stated absolutely none as well. How are you to be taken seriously yourself?



Do you support fascism? And it's true that evolution is pseudoscience by definition. I will reiterate it again for your sake using human evolution as an example to be more specific; it has never been physically observed in real world time by scientists, you cannot replicate the results of what scientists call evolution and nor can you test the 'theory' because of that, you cannot falsify it because there is no logical contradiction you can formulate against it. This is all unlike the Theory of General Relativity which it satisfies. Therefore, it's pseudoscience. That's how the scientific method works. The way you speak fanatically in defense of evolution makes me think evolution is even more so just a belief like any other religion, thank you for that.

I was an academic researcher in the past and contributed to the scientific community in another field. And yes, I deny evolution as do many other logically sound individuals that I've come across. One other thing, please use better grammar when typing, thanks.

No, evolution is not pseudoscience by definition. You got your definition wrong. But your sources are pseudoscience sources by definition and that is easily shown to be the case.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read my last paragraph in your quote, thanks.

Vaccines. Probably others as well. Not my area of study.

You really should watch your language and remember the Ninth Commandment. It is not a ban on lying. It is a bon on bearing false witness against others. When you state opinions as facts without any qualifiers that is breaking the Ninth Commandment if you do not in fact know. And we can see that you do not know. You do not have to be willfully lying to break the Ninth. The reason that it exists is that even if you did not know that what you said against someone was false by repeating a false claim against someone you harmed that person. The fact that the person did not know that what they said was false does not take that harm away. That is why the bearing of false witness against others is banned.

 

[leroy]

No, and there you go making false claims about others again. You were shown to be wrong by me and others . As usual you simply refuse to understand how and then to make matters worse you make false claims about those that refuted you. This is a consistent pattern of yours.

Again , saying "you are wrong because i say so" is not a refutation........

 

[Comradio251]

No, evolution is not pseudoscience by definition. You got your definition wrong. But your sources are pseudoscience sources by definition and that is easily shown to be the case.

So, it's just a case of being in denial on your part now too? And you resorted to the "I'm right and your wrong" diatribe I see. Okay, have fun with that then.

P.S, I never took a vaccine in my life. Though, I know plenty of people who did die from taking the Covid vaccine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, it's just a case of being in denial on your part now too? And you resorted to the "I'm right and your wrong" diatribe I see. Okay, have fun with that then.

No, I offered to go over your errors with sources. Don't believe @leroy, he is just butt hurt because everyone trashed his last mistake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again , saying "you are wrong because i say so" is not a refutation........

I do not need to refute your nonsense again. You can go back an reread where I and everyone else explained your errors to you. You always play this game. The posts are still there, there is no need for anyone to prove you wrong again.

 

[anotherneil]

Read my last paragraph in your quote, thanks.

I read what you wrote several times before responding. It does not answer my question.

I have fulfilled your request. Now I'd like for you to commit to an answer - which one is your answer, A or B?

A: As someone who rejects biological evolution, I would turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution.

B: As someone who rejects biological evolution, I would not turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution.

If B, then I'd like to know why you wouldn't turn it down.

 

[Comradio251]

No, I offered to go over your errors with sources. Don't believe @leroy, he is just butt hurt because everyone trashed his last mistake.

Lol, go read one of my sources in my quotes about whale evolution fraud. Dr Gingerich an evolutionary paleontologist admitted he was wrong but for a long time kept selling his work as truth to natural history museums. All it took was a simple interview to get him out of the dark to admit the truth about it. It's a classical example of evolutionary fraud but this is much old news now and lots of people know all about it.

You should at least admit evolution could be wrong. It would seem more plausible for it to be true then in that case. There is no 'proof' in science though and anyone that tells you otherwise is full of it and is promoting pseudoscientific beliefs.

 

[Comradio251]

I read what you wrote several times before responding. It does not answer my question.

I have fulfilled your request. Now I'd like for you to commit to an answer - which one is your answer, A or B?

A: As someone who rejects biological evolution, I would turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution.

B: As someone who rejects biological evolution, I would not turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution.

If B, then I'd like to know why you wouldn't turn it down.

Okay, sir, I would choose B in theory then. If it works and the side effects of the treatment are at a minimum, the treatment plan was a genuine find through thorough scientific research, then I don't see a problem implementing it. If it benefits society it's good to me.

 

[Dimi95]

I was an academic researcher in the past and contributed to the scientific community in another field. And yes, I deny evolution as do many other logically sound individuals that I've come across. One other thing, please use better grammar when typing, thanks.

So you also deny evolution of the human mind(counsciousness) and language development.

How do you explain cave paintings that are dated so early?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, go read one of my sources in my quotes about whale evolution fraud. Dr Gingerich an evolutionary paleontologist admitted he was wrong but for a long time kept selling his work as truth to natural history museums. All it took was a simple interview to get him out of the dark to admit the truth about it. It's a classical example of evolutionary fraud but this is much old news now and lots of people know all about it.

You should at least admit evolution could be wrong. It would seem more plausible for it to be true then in that case. There is no 'proof' in science though and anyone that tells you otherwise is full of it and is promoting pseudoscientific beliefs.

You can quote from your sources, but they are worthless sources. I offered to explain to you how I know that. I will not bother to go to lying sites when it comes to claims.

There is a very very tiny chance that evolution could be wrong. But there is also a very very tine chance that when you hold a hammer out at arm's length and release it that it will not fall.

You had quote a few claims about science and evolution that are demonstrably wrong. Would you like to go over them?