113
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 01:49 pm
Page 606 !
Looks like you can't beat an 'evolution denial' thread for word salad !
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2019 02:31 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Page 606 !
Looks like you can't beat an 'evolution denial' thread for word salad !


Looks like you are getting weirder by the minute,
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2019 05:25 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
What do you mean when you say the computer is the virtual opposite of QM?
I was being both metaphorical and literal.

I mean the ideal computer has a total lack of things like Heisenberg uncertainty principles, Schrodenger's cat, etc. There are no sources of anything unpredictable, any change from a known state must result in another known state. It is an ideal binary world where everything is deterministic. Never is there anything like an 'unpredictable Quantum Fluctuation'. There is nothing relative or statistical about it. Things are either one or zero.

And when an error happens in a non-ideal computer, we call it by its proper name, an error, not evolution.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2019 05:56 am
@Leadfoot,
Don't forget we now have 'Quantum Computers'. Your comments more specifically refer to ordinary computers using binary logic in which QM effects must be taken into account and eliminated at the design stage.

As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, there has been a proposal (Penrose) that 'consciosness' may be attributable to 'quantum processes in neural microtuhules'. This is of course speculation, but it does relate to those biologists who see no significant 'step change' in the evolution of humans from primates. Indeed 'consciousness' is deflated as 'nothing special' by theorists such as Maturana.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2019 06:17 am
@Leadfoot,
So, this is obtainable in a super conductor or a Bose Einstein condensate.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 May, 2019 11:27 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
As far as evolutionary theory is concerned, there has been a proposal (Penrose) that 'consciosness' may be attributable to 'quantum processes in neural microtuhules'.


what?????? consciousness is NEVER created by something like this at all.
just look at NDE and all that jazz.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2019 06:02 pm
@OldGrumpy,
Your mind uses the speed of light to tell the different frequencies in the different colors of light.
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 May, 2019 11:38 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Your mind uses the speed of light to tell the different frequencies in the different colors of light.


wow, and I always thought it depended on the frequency! How wrong I was , eh?!


Quote:
Color is determined first by frequency and then by how those frequencies are combined or mixed when they reach they eye.


https://physics.info/color/
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 02:07 am
@brianjakub,
You are correct that 'minds' are involved in judging the success of scientific paradigms in so far that there needs to be social agreement about their utility and the selection of 'physical evidence' which supports them (Thomas Khun). (This is an extrapolation of your correct citation of 'the mind' being specifically involved in 'color perception' which depends both on physical parameters such as wavelength together with cultural and emotional factors.)

To get back on topic, I suggest you consider these 'agreement of minds' factors in the overwhelming acceptance of evolutionary theory. Of course, if you want to play the religious trump card that 'minds have a divine origin' you don't have much to discuss !
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 03:12 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I suggest you consider these 'agreement of minds' factors in the overwhelming acceptance of evolutionary theory


I see this all the time. That a lot of people agree upon something , doesn't automatically make it true or real, or whatever.

Lots of people BELIEVE in the evil-lotion THEORY. That by itself doesn't make it right. Only evidence does. and well, there is a lot of lacking evidence in this side of eh err 'science".
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:23 am
@fresco,
I accept evolutionary theory. I just don't except sciences willingness to endow random actions of nature with divine power without any evidence beyond consensus from people who only expect a naturalist philosophical point of view. In my opinion they are playing games with words to avoid calling naturalism religion .
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 May, 2019 04:54 am
@brianjakub,
So you don't accept that 'divine power' is a bit of word play of your own ascribing 'ultimate cause' to a mythical entity. I think youknow what the consensus of 'scientists' is on that !
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 May, 2019 08:31 pm
@fresco,
Macroevolution by random mutations, Abiogenesis and stellarnucleosynthesis are three myths invented by people with scientific backgrounds. It is consensus that God is real and not mythical (even among scientists, Just not the ones at the top)
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 May, 2019 01:21 am
@brianjakub,
......no comment !
brianjakub
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 May, 2019 05:16 pm
@fresco,
Thank you.
0 Replies
 
GMDonald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 05:25 am
@farmerman,
The use of a term that denotes an organic family, to give an example of a group of isomers does not make it living organism.
Make the chemicals sit up and bark and you'll have something.
0 Replies
 
GMDonald
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 05:29 am
@farmerman,
Genetics is an observable, repeatable, factual occurrence. Evolution is only hearsay. Find a video where you see one kind of life giving birth to something that is not like the mother, and then you will have evidence for evolution.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 May, 2019 11:22 am
@GMDonald,
GMDonald wrote:

Genetics is an observable, repeatable, factual occurrence. Evolution is only hearsay. Find a video where you see one kind of life giving birth to something that is not like the mother, and then you will have evidence for evolution.

Everything that is born is different from its mother. Even in asexually reproducing organisms, the daughter organisms are not identical clones to the mother.

If they were, evolution couldn't have generated all the biological diversity that exists.

Evolution is how God creates the universe, past and present. It is the modus operandi of an energetic universe where forms are never static but always changing, dying, and regenerating in new forms.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 May, 2019 04:44 am
@GMDonald,
Quote:
Genetics is an observable, repeatable, factual occurrence. Evolution is only hearsay. Find a video where you see one kind of life giving birth to something that is not like the mother, and then you will have evidence for evolution.


Yep, can't be done, evil lotion is just one big hoax.
a pity that some people are so extremely dumb, and yet, earn some money with this shite-theory! It is indeed a crazy world, in which people believe in very crazy stupid and retarded ideas like evolution-shite.

Ah well one day...
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 May, 2019 01:46 am
I was digging through old posts of mine on a different messageboard, and I came across a years-old post of mine where I'd posted this.

For all I know I posted it on a2k too way back then, but I don't remember.

It's not fake either:
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/remains-to-be-seen-2/

I wasn't sure whether to post this in a humor thread or an evolution thread. I chose here.

http://i.imgur.com/TYpLJpO.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5DdXi8z.jpg
http://live.staticflickr.com/8542/8684683168_c055305032_b.jpg
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/26/2019 at 01:16:33