Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[☭proletarian☭]

"He" sent His only begotten Son. Use some of that 'reason' He gave you.

Methinks that if a bunch of zombies were walking around after an earthquake (Matthew 27:51-53), people would've mentioned it- and not just in a single novel written some time after the events occur in-world.

They were "saints" (not prone to physical corruption or rotting for you). They were not zombies.

zombie: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

Nobody noticed the dead 'saints' and wrote about it?

Why does it only appear in a single novel?

 

[Old Rocks]

There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal.

Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.

When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.

When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

 

[THE LIGHT]

what then do you say about adaptations in a population of the same species isolated and in a different environment than another population, or which have adapted to different elements of a mutual environment over time? when these populations fail to interbreed, and instead further isolate themselves socially or physically, and by extension genetically, doesn't that give rise to different species over time?

what in your paradigm whereby God has 'designed things to adapt' prevents divergence like i've described above, and which can be witnessed in nature? by accepting the mechanisms of natural selection and natural adaptation, aren't you accepting evolution after all?

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

You seem to fail to understand how complex the world is.

Let me google that for you

Actually, creationists know that the world is complex where as, evolutionists think that they can fit the world to a linear model without bounds. They think that with a few hundred years of data with significant scatter, they can fit a linear regression to it while ignoring all of the variables and boundary conditions necessary to derive an accurate model. Not to mention the enormous uncertainty that would be generated from trying to forecast the model back a few tens of thousands of years much less billions or trillions of years. The fact that they even claim to hold some sort of scientific theory is utterly laughable.

 

[antagon]

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

firstly, taxonomy can be a bit lacking when it comes to describing everything the biological world throws at us. still 'family' is not subset of 'species', rather 'species' is a subset of 'genus', a subset of 'family'.

that makes your point a bit obscured, but selective breeding affecting the expression of genes for genetic adaptations through heredity could, by the exact same mechanism, affect physical and genetic barricades to breeding between different populations. these are the roots of an argument for another species.

what prevents the logic from playing out to this extent? what bars the potential for speciation, if you acknowledge the same mechanics that its based on?

Thanks for the correction in terminology.
It is fine to speculate. Just do not state, teach evolution as fact without proof. Do not discount any other theory, based on a relatively small group of people (scientists that support evolution). I love sci-fi. It is a blast to pretend that people are smart enough to figure out the world's mysteries. Some ideas based on fantasy improve the world (not all of them, but some). Until there is proof, leave room for other ideas, and other theories, it is possible that the theory of evolution is not correct, and if it is, how will all the people that were taught it is fact, feel? How will they look at other things scientists say are 'fact'?

Truth is everything. Don't eliminate other ideas, until you can prove yours correct.

im a bit turned off by some abridged explanations of evolution. when it is explained to kids, or in pop magazines, authors tend to personify the process or imply that the mechanism is lead more directly by the organisms involved, rather than more heavily stressing the role of selection and how that works.

but to condemn evolution education on the lines that the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, does not take into account the number of proven hypotheses which support it. that would be akin to condemning education on the theory of relativity because it hasn't been proven. the reality is that none of these theories will ever reach the point of absolute proof, because of what they state. evolution would require omnipresence across time to verify, and relativity would require omnipresence across space... right on back to God.

if education drives home the basis of fundamental science: the scientific method, the value and role of theory, law, hypothesis, experimentation, etc... i think you'd better appreciate what the theory claims independent from 'fact', a term alien to science altogether.

i get the impression that your dissatisfaction with the relative certainty that the precepts of the theory puts forth is based in lack of understanding of them. some of the challenges you've put forward and your claims that no evidence supports the theory are merely the product of lack of research and education on your part.

does that really place you in an adequate position to critique education? that aside, is it so bad that we teach and learn the state-of-the-art, rather than doubt it? the consequences arent that bad. imagine if God turns out to be drastically different than what you've learned? if you die and vishnu approaches you to brief you on your next life, while you would have been wrong about your christianity, you would have lived a virtuous christian life notwithstanding that.

isnt your faith more valuable than what science has come up with as the roots of our earthly origin and offers substantial evidence to support? that's based on less tangible evidence than evolution, as rdean and the cynic will point out. if i die and Jesus tells me, 'nah, bro, you had it all wrong, what me and Dad did was create each species one by one and just throw all that genetics stuff in for giggles' ... i wont be crushed, just happy to be in the Man's presence.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

The ones in congress.
No wait they evolved from snakes.
And not very far.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Obviously you read my post as carefully as you read the bible!

So then, how is it a lie taught from the pulpit if you are agreeing with me?

Obviously, you made your post just to take up space on the page and it had no relevance to the post of mine to which you responded.

How do you figure I'm agreeing with you???

It's a lie taught from the pulpit because science doesn't say they are gills, as the quote I cited that, like the bible you never bothered to read, said in no uncertain terms they were not gills. Calling them gills is a Straw Man Creationists fabricated because they know they can't disprove science any other way.

The person I made my comment to was not someone preaching from a pulpit but rather someone sympathetic to Evolutionism, therefore you were either trying to take up space with your post or you just failed to read the post to which I was responding.

 

[THE LIGHT]

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

The ones in congress.
No wait they evolved from snakes.
And not very far.

 

[antagon]

It stays the same 'species', it may be referred to as a different 'family' of the same species, but it hasn't changed species. It is an example of 'selective breeding'.

You seem to fail to understand how complex the world is.

Let me google that for you

Actually, creationists know that the world is complex where as, evolutionists think that they can fit the world to a linear model without bounds. They think that with a few hundred years of data with significant scatter, they can fit a linear regression to it while ignoring all of the variables and boundary conditions necessary to derive an accurate model. Not to mention the enormous uncertainty that would be generated from trying to forecast the model back a few tens of thousands of years much less billions or trillions of years. The fact that they even claim to hold some sort of scientific theory is utterly laughable.

what is linear about evolution theory?

boundary conditions? if you know what you're talking about, can you help me out and explain the relationships between your (or your buddy's book's) math and evolution or biology? evolution certainly takes account for the present date and an estimate of the age of the earth. regional boundary conditions are acknowledged as the basis of population isolation... but that's biology. i dont get how a mathematician's model is more credible than scientific research.

your fail is that you're trying to pigeonhole evolution into an equation, a differential of all things, and claim that it's failures in that paradigm are due to the theory, without demonstrating the equation can resolve something as complex in the firstplace.

thats whats utterly laughable, lite.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

Let me google that for you

 

[THE LIGHT]

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

Let me google that for you

I see,

☭proletarian☭ = "Let me google that for you"

So in other words you have no knowledge about the subject of your own, only stuff you find on the internet.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I'm not a teacher. I don't have the patience to try to teach you special-needs kids what you should have learned many years ago.

If you're not willing to go learn, don't expect people to waste time with you.

 

[THE LIGHT]

You seem to fail to understand how complex the world is.

Let me google that for you

Actually, creationists know that the world is complex where as, evolutionists think that they can fit the world to a linear model without bounds. They think that with a few hundred years of data with significant scatter, they can fit a linear regression to it while ignoring all of the variables and boundary conditions necessary to derive an accurate model. Not to mention the enormous uncertainty that would be generated from trying to forecast the model back a few tens of thousands of years much less billions or trillions of years. The fact that they even claim to hold some sort of scientific theory is utterly laughable.

what is linear about evolution theory?

boundary conditions? if you know what you're talking about, can you help me out and explain the relationships between your (or your buddy's book's) math and evolution or biology? evolution certainly takes account for the present date and an estimate of the age of the earth. regional boundary conditions are acknowledged as the basis of population isolation... but that's biology. i dont get how a mathematician's model is more credible than scientific research.

your fail is that you're trying to pigeonhole evolution into an equation, a differential of all things, and claim that it's failures in that paradigm are due to the theory, without demonstrating the equation can resolve something as complex in the firstplace.

thats whats utterly laughable, lite.

A mathematical model is used to describe a highly complex universe. Scientific research can only observe something in the current time dimension. Therefore in order to forecast a hypothesis one must fit a mathematical model to the data. (i.e. Scientific research can only be used to define and/or validate a mathematical model)

 

[THE LIGHT]

I'm not a teacher. I don't have the patience to try to teach you special-needs kids what you should have learned many years ago.

If you're not willing to go learn, don't expect people to waste time with you.

No, you don't respond because when it comes to thinking for yourself, you don't know how to.

 

[logical4u]

firstly, taxonomy can be a bit lacking when it comes to describing everything the biological world throws at us. still 'family' is not subset of 'species', rather 'species' is a subset of 'genus', a subset of 'family'.

that makes your point a bit obscured, but selective breeding affecting the expression of genes for genetic adaptations through heredity could, by the exact same mechanism, affect physical and genetic barricades to breeding between different populations. these are the roots of an argument for another species.

what prevents the logic from playing out to this extent? what bars the potential for speciation, if you acknowledge the same mechanics that its based on?

Thanks for the correction in terminology.
It is fine to speculate. Just do not state, teach evolution as fact without proof. Do not discount any other theory, based on a relatively small group of people (scientists that support evolution). I love sci-fi. It is a blast to pretend that people are smart enough to figure out the world's mysteries. Some ideas based on fantasy improve the world (not all of them, but some). Until there is proof, leave room for other ideas, and other theories, it is possible that the theory of evolution is not correct, and if it is, how will all the people that were taught it is fact, feel? How will they look at other things scientists say are 'fact'?

Truth is everything. Don't eliminate other ideas, until you can prove yours correct.

im a bit turned off by some abridged explanations of evolution. when it is explained to kids, or in pop magazines, authors tend to personify the process or imply that the mechanism is lead more directly by the organisms involved, rather than more heavily stressing the role of selection and how that works.

but to condemn evolution education on the lines that the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, does not take into account the number of proven hypotheses which support it. that would be akin to condemning education on the theory of relativity because it hasn't been proven. the reality is that none of these theories will ever reach the point of absolute proof, because of what they state. evolution would require omnipresence across time to verify, and relativity would require omnipresence across space... right on back to God.

if education drives home the basis of fundamental science: the scientific method, the value and role of theory, law, hypothesis, experimentation, etc... i think you'd better appreciate what the theory claims independent from 'fact', a term alien to science altogether.

i get the impression that your dissatisfaction with the relative certainty that the precepts of the theory puts forth is based in lack of understanding of them. some of the challenges you've put forward and your claims that no evidence supports the theory are merely the product of lack of research and education on your part.

does that really place you in an adequate position to critique education? that aside, is it so bad that we teach and learn the state-of-the-art, rather than doubt it? the consequences arent that bad. imagine if God turns out to be drastically different than what you've learned? if you die and vishnu approaches you to brief you on your next life, while you would have been wrong about your christianity, you would have lived a virtuous christian life notwithstanding that.

isnt your faith more valuable than what science has come up with as the roots of our earthly origin and offers substantial evidence to support? that's based on less tangible evidence than evolution, as rdean and the cynic will point out. if i die and Jesus tells me, 'nah, bro, you had it all wrong, what me and Dad did was create each species one by one and just throw all that genetics stuff in for giggles' ... i wont be crushed, just happy to be in the Man's presence.

I get what you are saying...this makes sense to all the 'educated' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I could use the same argument for religion.... it makes sense to all the 'good' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I was taught evolution, there are just too many unanswered questions to present it as fact for me. I still watch for new developments and read on new findings, most are disappointingly vague.
I am not against science (that includes mathematics as well as the sciences that are twisted to make political points). I am against 'teaching' (I would call it indoctrinating, because if the students present a different theory, they are punished thru grades) that science has ALL the answers. It doesn't. We are very complex creatures with physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological needs. Science cannot meet all those needs, it cannot even begin to explain why we act the way we do. I am simply suggesting that the classroom present the facts: many scientists work to prove the theory of evolution....., many theologians work to prove the theory of creation....., it isn't sloppy, it isn't complicated. It allows the student the freedom to choose to believe in one, the other, both, or to develop a new theory.
Do me a favor and listen to the 'evolutionists'; there is usually a hidden message that is suggesting there is no G*d, no Creator. The 'believers' of evolution do not want anyone to be able to choose different from evolution. If you believe them on that 'whopper', well then you will be easy to manipulate on all their other 'science based' plans to enslave the population of the world. It is the reason they 'hate' G*d. He sets people free. They will insist it is the other way around, but observe both sets of 'believers' and see if you can see a pattern. The 'believers' in evolution typically have more 'mental health' problems that can manifest physically causing them to age quicker. The 'believers' in creation, just seem happier, more content with their lives, and less prone to illnesses from stress. (Before you go off on me...it is a generalization, not ALL inclusive)
Again, TRUTH is everything….if you are only willing to look at one side; you may eliminate a path to understanding. That is my biggest problem with only presenting, one theory.

 

[logical4u]

Methinks that if a bunch of zombies were walking around after an earthquake (Matthew 27:51-53), people would've mentioned it- and not just in a single novel written some time after the events occur in-world.

They were "saints" (not prone to physical corruption or rotting for you). They were not zombies.

zombie: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

Nobody noticed the dead 'saints' and wrote about it?

Why does it only appear in a single novel?

Maybe, compared to all the other 'wonders' that were happening, it didn't seem that 'amazing'.

 

[antagon]

Actually, creationists know that the world is complex where as, evolutionists think that they can fit the world to a linear model without bounds. They think that with a few hundred years of data with significant scatter, they can fit a linear regression to it while ignoring all of the variables and boundary conditions necessary to derive an accurate model. Not to mention the enormous uncertainty that would be generated from trying to forecast the model back a few tens of thousands of years much less billions or trillions of years. The fact that they even claim to hold some sort of scientific theory is utterly laughable.

what is linear about evolution theory?

boundary conditions? if you know what you're talking about, can you help me out and explain the relationships between your (or your buddy's book's) math and evolution or biology? evolution certainly takes account for the present date and an estimate of the age of the earth. regional boundary conditions are acknowledged as the basis of population isolation... but that's biology. i dont get how a mathematician's model is more credible than scientific research.

your fail is that you're trying to pigeonhole evolution into an equation, a differential of all things, and claim that it's failures in that paradigm are due to the theory, without demonstrating the equation can resolve something as complex in the firstplace.

thats whats utterly laughable, lite.

A mathematical model is used to describe a highly complex universe. Scientific research can only observe something in the current time dimension. Therefore in order to forecast a hypothesis one must fit a mathematical model to the data. (i.e. Scientific research can only be used to define and/or validate a mathematical model)

that's not an explanation. produce an equation that accounts for biology over time as a control.

i think what you've just stated is pure nonsense, but i am willing to see it substantiated by math. produce such an equation, and your theory that hypotheses must fit a math model - a joke as it stands - will seem more grounded. then we'll talk about how that could possibly apply to an entire theory with the facets of evolution. it is laugh out loud comedy to me at this point... especially from a fundamentalist creationist.

produce the math.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

They were "saints" (not prone to physical corruption or rotting for you). They were not zombies.

zombie: a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force

Nobody noticed the dead 'saints' and wrote about it?

Why does it only appear in a single novel?

Maybe, compared to all the other 'wonders' that were happening, it didn't seem that 'amazing'.

wonders such as...?

What records are there of any common 'wonders' that would render the zombie apocalypse less than noteworthy?

 

[code1211]

No, man did not evolve from an ape, we evolved from a common ancestor. And there is nothing but evidence for this. From fossils, to the genetics of all living creatures.

Which fossils?

Let me google that for you

That "Let me google that for you" schtick is great! You really do google that for him, uh, me, um, everyone.

 

[antagon]

Thanks for the correction in terminology.
It is fine to speculate. Just do not state, teach evolution as fact without proof. Do not discount any other theory, based on a relatively small group of people (scientists that support evolution). I love sci-fi. It is a blast to pretend that people are smart enough to figure out the world's mysteries. Some ideas based on fantasy improve the world (not all of them, but some). Until there is proof, leave room for other ideas, and other theories, it is possible that the theory of evolution is not correct, and if it is, how will all the people that were taught it is fact, feel? How will they look at other things scientists say are 'fact'?

Truth is everything. Don't eliminate other ideas, until you can prove yours correct.

im a bit turned off by some abridged explanations of evolution. when it is explained to kids, or in pop magazines, authors tend to personify the process or imply that the mechanism is lead more directly by the organisms involved, rather than more heavily stressing the role of selection and how that works.

but to condemn evolution education on the lines that the theory of evolution hasn't been proven, does not take into account the number of proven hypotheses which support it. that would be akin to condemning education on the theory of relativity because it hasn't been proven. the reality is that none of these theories will ever reach the point of absolute proof, because of what they state. evolution would require omnipresence across time to verify, and relativity would require omnipresence across space... right on back to God.

if education drives home the basis of fundamental science: the scientific method, the value and role of theory, law, hypothesis, experimentation, etc... i think you'd better appreciate what the theory claims independent from 'fact', a term alien to science altogether.

i get the impression that your dissatisfaction with the relative certainty that the precepts of the theory puts forth is based in lack of understanding of them. some of the challenges you've put forward and your claims that no evidence supports the theory are merely the product of lack of research and education on your part.

does that really place you in an adequate position to critique education? that aside, is it so bad that we teach and learn the state-of-the-art, rather than doubt it? the consequences arent that bad. imagine if God turns out to be drastically different than what you've learned? if you die and vishnu approaches you to brief you on your next life, while you would have been wrong about your christianity, you would have lived a virtuous christian life notwithstanding that.

isnt your faith more valuable than what science has come up with as the roots of our earthly origin and offers substantial evidence to support? that's based on less tangible evidence than evolution, as rdean and the cynic will point out. if i die and Jesus tells me, 'nah, bro, you had it all wrong, what me and Dad did was create each species one by one and just throw all that genetics stuff in for giggles' ... i wont be crushed, just happy to be in the Man's presence.

I get what you are saying...this makes sense to all the 'educated' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I could use the same argument for religion.... it makes sense to all the 'good' folks... shouldn't we teach it as fact? I was taught evolution, there are just too many unanswered questions to present it as fact for me. I still watch for new developments and read on new findings, most are disappointingly vague.
I am not against science (that includes mathematics as well as the sciences that are twisted to make political points). I am against 'teaching' (I would call it indoctrinating, because if the students present a different theory, they are punished thru grades) that science has ALL the answers. It doesn't. We are very complex creatures with physical, spiritual, emotional, and psychological needs. Science cannot meet all those needs, it cannot even begin to explain why we act the way we do. I am simply suggesting that the classroom present the facts: many scientists work to prove the theory of evolution....., many theologians work to prove the theory of creation....., it isn't sloppy, it isn't complicated. It allows the student the freedom to choose to believe in one, the other, both, or to develop a new theory.
Do me a favor and listen to the 'evolutionists'; there is usually a hidden message that is suggesting there is no G*d, no Creator. The 'believers' of evolution do not want anyone to be able to choose different from evolution. If you believe them on that 'whopper', well then you will be easy to manipulate on all their other 'science based' plans to enslave the population of the world. It is the reason they 'hate' G*d. He sets people free. They will insist it is the other way around, but observe both sets of 'believers' and see if you can see a pattern. The 'believers' in evolution typically have more 'mental health' problems that can manifest physically causing them to age quicker. The 'believers' in creation, just seem happier, more content with their lives, and less prone to illnesses from stress. (Before you go off on me...it is a generalization, not ALL inclusive)
Again, TRUTH is everything….if you are only willing to look at one side; you may eliminate a path to understanding. That is my biggest problem with only presenting, one theory.

your very fundamental misunderstanding is with the use of the word *fact*. whats the point of the term 'theory' if you talk about teaching the theory of evolution as fact? i digress to my point that education has failed to even drive home the basics, like what a theory is. being one such victim, you're ahead of yourself worrying about a specific theory without understanding the term 'theory' in the first place. after you're apprised of its meaning, you could look into its application: essentially a precept to explore and by which hypotheses can be drawn and vetted.

a declaration of fact, such like what fundamentalist religious doctrines may state, is not, per sa, scientific. that is the issue is i have with teaching creationist dogma in a science classroom. it operates outside of science by virtue of its (oft supernatural) bases and conjecture that it is incontrovertible. maybe history or anthropology, philosophy or religion class. i had a religious education for years, and it was never necessary for my science teacher to go on about god, as all that was studied in it's own depth elsewhere. we still had grades to keep up in religion as well. the discipline of scholarship should bend to your skepticism about evolution too?

as to the tug-of-war between fundamentalists and atheists, that is a whole separate argument. neither will ever find the tools for accounts of the supernatural to substantiate the natural, or the natural to measure the supernatural. from my perspective, those struggles are for idiots. while most researchers abide by a religious tradition and subscribe to evolution at the same time, the vast majority of people have moved past the quest for one paradigm to compete with the next. i cant speak for this entire majority, but i find them to compliment eachother. the scientist who's out to disclaim god through science is debasing his trade to the same extent that a preacher is debasing god through the denial of natural science. after all, didn't god supply us with the wherewithal to observe nature, moreover create nature in the first place? my faith isnt threatened by that science, nor my knowledge of the world by my knowledge of God. many people share this mindset; part of our day and age.

as for your perception of creationists and their wellbeing... well,