Mathematical Disproof of Evolution

Richie_LaMontre · Apr 9, 2002

Originally posted by G0D
No point in changing or trying to change another person's opinion.

"What is interesting is the discussion about HOW one came to the conclusions/opinions that one holds. So, in that spirit, I gotta ask -

How did you come to the belief you currently hold?"

Simple observation and interaction. I have been with, and debated, online and off, with those who would be called "religious". They will react in the same manner, use the same "type" facts. (i.e. Unprovable, conjecture). The one difference I find, is that those who adhere to the evolutionary belief system seem to think that their "facts" are impunable simply because of the "scientific" source. When in reality, they are no better than the the documented history, or archaeological findings which corraborate biblical as well as other religious documents, which are also ridiculed by much of the evolutionary scientific community. Especially in regards to origins and the early years of man.

"How did you validate the process? (aka did you do a reality check?)"

Well of course. I have done my share of research. Though I do not, (nor would anyone else) consider me an expert.

And I have asked the same question of those who advocate evolution. And they have their "reasons to believe". Just as you do, and just as I do, and just as most rational people do.

"How come many scientists do not share your view? (collective bias? conspiracy?)"

I do not know that they don't. I have not researched this opinion to the extent of questioning what others, expert, or not, think of it. (aside from debating in forums such as this and perhaps conversations with folks such as yourself). Although most of those who would be advocates of a "religious" viewpoint would not wish to see evolution declared a "religion". (for the life of me I don't understand why). While evolutionary advocates would not wish to see this either. As that would preclude them from teching their doctrines in the schools. However as I see it, the imperialization over the issue by the evolutionary adherants in our schools is a shame, and akin to same kind of thing that the Christian community would be accused of in the same scenario. That of "closed minded" and "fearful of change". And in reality, "origins", whether evolutionary or not, are an open ended question. All are simply "beliefs". Not "facts". One cannot be better than the other.

I add this as an after thought. IF indeed there are evolutionary theorists who possibly feel this way about their profession. They would never ever come out of "the closet" and admit it publically for the same reasons that a good Catholic would never come out publically against the Pope. (should such a one feel the need to do so) They run the risk of being "excommunicated" from the "church" of their peers.

Thanks for the honest questions. I appreciate the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Richie_LaMontre · Apr 9, 2002

Originally posted by G0D
No point in changing or trying to change another person's opinion.

"What is interesting is the discussion about HOW one came to the conclusions/opinions that one holds. So, in that spirit, I gotta ask -

How did you come to the belief you currently hold?"

Simple observation and interaction. I have been with, and debated, online and off, with those who would be called "religious". They will react in the same manner, use the same "type" facts. (i.e. Unprovable, conjecture). The one difference I find, is that those who adhere to the evolutionary belief system seem to think that their "facts" are impunable simply because of the "scientific" source. When in reality, they are no better than the the documented history, or archaeological findings which corraborate biblical as well as other religious documents, which are also ridiculed by much of the evolutionary scientific community. Especially in regards to origins and the early years of man.

"How did you validate the process? (aka did you do a reality check?)"

Well of course. I have done my share of research. Though I do not, (nor would anyone else) consider me an expert.

And I have asked the same question of those who advocate evolution. And they have their "reasons to believe". Just as you do, and just as I do, and just as most rational people do.

"How come many scientists do not share your view? (collective bias? conspiracy?)"

I do not know that they don't. I have not researched this opinion to the extent of questioning what others, expert, or not, think of it. (aside from debating in forums such as this and perhaps conversations with folks such as yourself). Although most of those who would be advocates of a "religious" viewpoint would not wish to see evolution declared a "religion". (for the life of me I don't understand why). While evolutionary advocates would not wish to see this either. As that would preclude them from teching their doctrines in the schools. However as I see it, the imperialization over the issue by the evolutionary adherants in our schools is a shame, and akin to same kind of thing that the Christian community would be accused of in the same scenario. That of "closed minded" and "fearful of change". And in reality, "origins", whether evolutionary or not, are an open ended question. All are simply "beliefs". Not "facts". One cannot be better than the other.

I add this as an after thought. IF indeed there are evolutionary theorists who possibly feel this way about their profession. They would never ever come out of "the closet" and admit it publically for the same reasons that a good Catholic would never come out publically against the Pope. (should such a one feel the need to do so) They run the risk of being "excommunicated" from the "church" of their peers.

Thanks for the honest questions. I appreciate the opportunity.
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Raithere · Apr 10, 2002

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
The one difference I find, is that those who adhere to the evolutionary belief system seem to think that their "facts" are impunable simply because of the "scientific" source. When in reality, they are no better than the the documented history, or archaeological findings which corraborate biblical as well as other religious documents, which are also ridiculed by much of the evolutionary scientific community. Especially in regards to origins and the early years of man.

What you are stating here is that each group relies on an appeal to authority, which is often the case. However, your are misapplying it. The fallacy of appeal to authority states that the authority is an expert in a field other than the one being discussed is an invalid argument. Appeal to an authority who is an expert in the field is not a fallacy. However, that authority (or at least their statements) may be examined and debated in turn.

And in reality, "origins", whether evolutionary or not, are an open ended question. All are simply "beliefs". Not "facts". One cannot be better than the other.

Scientific Evolutionary "beliefs" (better labeled as theories) are supported by facts, it is refutable (but not yet validly refuted), provable, and rational while Creationism is not. In my opinion that makes it "better".

Check out my post in the Science vs Religion thread which goes into more detail about the scientific process.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Godless · Apr 10, 2002

My ancestors were aliens....

Say I go back in time billions of years, my ancestors then would be aliens. Every element of our bodies is part of the phenomena we call the universe, therefore my ancestors true origins come from space.

Richie_LaMontre · Apr 10, 2002

Originally posted by Raithere

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
The one difference I find, is that those who adhere to the evolutionary belief system seem to think that their "facts" are impunable simply because of the "scientific" source. When in reality, they are no better than the the documented history, or archaeological findings which corraborate biblical as well as other religious documents, which are also ridiculed by much of the evolutionary scientific community. Especially in regards to origins and the early years of man.

"What you are stating here is that each group relies on an appeal to authority, which is often the case. However, your are misapplying it. The fallacy of appeal to authority states that the authority is an expert in a field other than the one being discussed is an invalid argument. Appeal to an authority who is an expert in the field is not a fallacy. However, that authority (or at least their statements) may be examined and debated in turn."

I think I get what your saying. But I am speaking from a purely laypersons, (i.e. my child in a classroom) perspective. In that scenario we have no choice but to appeal to the "authority". And if you don't believe this is a topic with religious implications just talk to one of those children who has been taught something from say, the bible, for most of their childhood, who is suddenly confronted with a well presented argument that says everything he believes is a lie. And if he disagrees, he gets an "F".

And in reality, "origins", whether evolutionary or not, are an open ended question. All are simply "beliefs". Not "facts". One cannot be better than the other.

"Scientific Evolutionary "beliefs" (better labeled as theories) are supported by facts, it is refutable (but not yet validly refuted), provable, and rational while Creationism is not. In my opinion that makes it "better"."

In your opinion, thank you.

And there are plenty of facts which support most all religious beliefs, (including evolution) whether they be contrived facts or not is irrelevent to the believer of those facts. And that is no where more evident than with the evolutionist. You can label them theories if you like, but they are still based upon substantiated as well as unsubstatiated facts and conjecture. Just as any religion, the "gaps" must be filled to satiate the simple. Because those with "horse sense" so to speak, laypersons, always tend to point out the obvious.

BTW, what should be considered a "valid" refutation of an opinion? I mean, if for instance, we decide not to appeal to "authority"?
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

James R · Apr 11, 2002

All real science is ultimately based on evidence, not opinion or authority.

Whereas the fundamentalist version of the biblical story of Creation can be shown to contradict the evidence provided by fossils, geological studies, DNA analyses, cladistics, and direct observation of evolutionary processes, no such contradiction has been seen so far with evolutionary theory.

Hence, the evidence favours (strongly) evolution over Creation.

Raithere · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
I think I get what your saying. But I am speaking from a purely laypersons, (i.e. my child in a classroom) perspective. In that scenario we have no choice but to appeal to the "authority". And if you don't believe this is a topic with religious implications just talk to one of those children who has been taught something from say, the bible, for most of their childhood, who is suddenly confronted with a well presented argument that says everything he believes is a lie. And if he disagrees, he gets an "F".

I don't believe that a student receives an "F" for disagreeing as long as they provide the proper answers on the tests. If a student asks "What about creation?" in a biology class and automatically receives an "F" then there is a problem with the teacher and the school. That is not the same as being asked a question about the evolution of the whale on a test and giving an answer such as "There is no such thing. God created whales as they are.".

Education is not about belief. Education is about learning 'how to learn' and knowledge of a topic. If a student is asked a question on a test about the science of biology and gives a religious answer they are just as wrong as if they were asked a question about the play "Romeo and Juliet" and give answer about the movie "Gladiator". Wrong subject, wrong answer. Education does not require that the student believe the information, only that they know and understand it.

If parents do not want their children to even be presented with this information they can always send them to parochial schools.

In your opinion, thank you.

Yes. It is my opinion that belief based upon empirical evidence is better (i.e. more reliable, more truthful, etc.) than belief that is not based upon based upon empirical evidence or, worse yet, belief contrary to the evidence. I can't say that the alternative is "wrong" but it is, at least, out of touch with reality and prone to error.

And there are plenty of facts which support most all religious beliefs, (including evolution) whether they be contrived facts or not is irrelevent to the believer of those facts. And that is no where more evident than with the evolutionist.

I don't seem to be able to convince you to stop calling evolution religion. Why is that? Do you disagree with the dictionary's definition?

"Contrived facts" is an oxymoron. What do you mean by this?

You can label them theories if you like, but they are still based upon substantiated as well as unsubstatiated facts and conjecture. Just as any religion, the "gaps" must be filled to satiate the simple. Because those with "horse sense" so to speak, laypersons, always tend to point out the obvious.

No. Evolution is based upon substantiated and corroborated facts, not conjecture.

Those laypersons with "horse sense" are often wrong. Look at geocentricism. Any layperson can watch the sun rise in the east, move across the sky, set in the west, and determine that the sun moves around the Earth. It's an obvious, natural conclusion based upon observation. It's also incorrect. As with evolution, geocentricism was the established religious position. As with evolution, is eventually gained acceptance in the religious community as it built up an almost irrefutable body of evidence.

BTW, what should be considered a "valid" refutation of an opinion? I mean, if for instance, we decide not to appeal to "authority"?

Does your question pertain to formal logic here or science?

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Richie_LaMontre · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Raithere

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
I think I get what your saying. But I am speaking from a purely laypersons, (i.e. my child in a classroom) perspective. In that scenario we have no choice but to appeal to the "authority". And if you don't believe this is a topic with religious implications just talk to one of those children who has been taught something from say, the bible, for most of their childhood, who is suddenly confronted with a well presented argument that says everything he believes is a lie. And if he disagrees, he gets an "F".

"I don't believe that a student receives an "F" for disagreeing as long as they provide the proper answers on the tests. If a student asks "What about creation?" in a biology class and automatically receives an "F" then there is a problem with the teacher and the school. That is not the same as being asked a question about the evolution of the whale on a test and giving an answer such as "There is no such thing. God created whales as they are."."

Well of course, but because the evidences for design are dismissed and not included in the criteria, he/she is left with no alternative.

"Education is not about belief. Education is about learning 'how to learn' and knowledge of a topic. If a student is asked a question on a test about the science of biology and gives a religious answer they are just as wrong as if they were asked a question about the play "Romeo and Juliet" and give answer about the movie "Gladiator"."

Except that, once again, there may be evidences against what he/she is learning. And if he has such thoughts they are supressed by the criteria. All because a creation scientists opinion about the same evidence, or any other opinion, is squashed.

"Wrong subject, wrong answer. Education does not require that the student believe the information, only that they know and understand it."

Oh so in other words, just learn what we tell ya....dont think for yourself? Where will we be in the scientific community in ten years with that kind of narrow thinking. You see what I mean? This is what the church was always accused of. And finally they were banned from the public forum(schools).

"If parents do not want their children to even be presented with this information they can always send them to parochial schools."

So were not allowed in the public forum eh? Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like an inquisition to me.

In your opinion, thank you.

"Yes. It is my opinion that belief based upon empirical evidence is better (i.e. more reliable, more truthful, etc.) than belief that is not based upon based upon empirical evidence or, worse yet, belief contrary to the evidence."

I would agree completely.

"I can't say that the alternative is "wrong" but it is, at least, out of touch with reality and prone to error."

And evolution isn't? It certainly cannot be said to be without error. And perception is reality.

And there are plenty of facts which support most all religious beliefs, (including evolution) whether they be contrived facts or not is irrelevent to the believer of those facts. And that is no where more evident than with the evolutionist.

"I don't seem to be able to convince you to stop calling evolution religion. Why is that? Do you disagree with the dictionary's definition?"

No, I simply am doing what an evolutionist supposedly does. Observing the evidence and drawing a logical conclusion.

"Contrived facts" is an oxymoron. What do you mean by this?"

I didn't really intend to put the two words together. I appologize. What I mean is that facts are used to support contrived conclusions. Meaning, certainly not the ONLY conclusions that could be drawn.

You can label them theories if you like, but they are still based upon substantiated as well as unsubstatiated facts and conjecture. Just as any religion, the "gaps" must be filled to satiate the simple. Because those with "horse sense" so to speak, laypersons, always tend to point out the obvious.

"No. Evolution is based upon substantiated and corroborated facts, not conjecture."

Yes but the coclusion that it was evoution that is responsible for what is observed is not the ONLY possible conclusion.

"Those laypersons with "horse sense" are often wrong."

At least they are certainly attacked and presented as being such.

"Look at geocentricism. Any layperson can watch the sun rise in the east, move across the sky, set in the west, and determine that the sun moves around the Earth. It's an obvious, natural conclusion based upon observation. It's also incorrect."

Well, it is also, now, something that can be disproven quite readily.

"As with evolution, geocentricism was the established religious position."

Yes, but it wasn't for no reason at all. It was from a reliable source of information which was simply misinterpreted. Evolution has had its share of embarassments over the same type mistakes.

"As with evolution, is eventually gained acceptance in the religious community as it built up an almost irrefutable body of evidence."

I understand the problem. But it is not irrefutable. It is simply a difference of opinion when observing the known facts.

BTW, what should be considered a "valid" refutation of an opinion? I mean, if for instance, we decide not to appeal to "authority"?

"Does your question pertain to formal logic here or science?"

Is there a difference? Let me put it this way. What would YOU accept as a possible refutation of evolution? Im not looking for the "pat answer" here ok? Just one specific something that might make you, at least decide that it evolution may not be the only possibility.
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Raithere · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Richie_LaMontre
Well of course, but because the evidences for design are dismissed and not included in the criteria, he/she is left with no alternative.

Oh so in other words, just learn what we tell ya....dont think for yourself? Where will we be in the scientific community in ten years with that kind of narrow thinking. You see what I mean? This is what the church was always accused of. And finally they were banned from the public forum(schools).

So were not allowed in the public forum eh? Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like an inquisition to me.

We're talking about problems with the educational system here NOT problems with science. That high-schoolers don't get to debate evolution vs. creation with their teachers is not the failing of science, it is a limitation of the educational system. High-schoolers don't get to debate who wrote "Romeo and Juliet" either. If one of them writes down "Francis Bacon" they'll get an "F".

Also, schools (I'll limit it to grade-school, high-school, and undergrad here) are NOT a public forum for the debate of scientific theory. They're not a forum for public debate of any kind, not in the classroom, not unless it's a class about… debating. There are lectures, conventions, interest groups, websites, publications, councils (both scientific and political), etc. for debate. How long would it take to graduate from high-school if, in addition to teaching the subject material the professor had to argue every POV with every student?

Science does not dismiss alternative claims without consideration as long as they are scientific claims. The reason why many are so quick to dismiss creationists' claims at this point is the creationists are not really coming up with anything new. It's the same old stuff that was considered back when evolution was a new-born theory.

"Yes. It is my opinion that belief based upon empirical evidence is better (i.e. more reliable, more truthful, etc.) than belief that is not based upon based upon empirical evidence or, worse yet, belief contrary to the evidence."

I would agree completely.

Then show me one piece of empirical evidence that supports creationism that is not; 1. Shown to be false., 2. Better explained by evolution., or 3. Not really in contradiction to evolution.

And evolution isn't? It certainly cannot be said to be without error. And perception is reality.

I said "prone to error". Meaning that it is inclined towards errors or has a tendency towards error. What I mean by this is that if someone acts upon a belief that is inconsistent with factual evidence one tends to make errors. Like the kid who thought he could fly and jumped off the 20th floor, beliefs that are inconsistent with the facts tend to cause problems. And if perception were reality then the kid could fly.

No, I simply am doing what an evolutionist supposedly does. Observing the evidence and drawing a logical conclusion.

Fact: Religion denotes the belief in God and/or the supernatural and/or an afterlife.
Fact: Evolution says nothing (neither pro nor con) about any of these concepts.
Therefore: Evolution is NOT religion.

That certain religious beliefs may be put into question due to the findings of evolution does not make evolution a religion. It merely means that the religion is not in agreement with science.

Yes but the coclusion that it was evoution that is responsible for what is observed is not the ONLY possible conclusion.

It not the only possible solution, no. But it the best solution we have based upon the evidence.

At least they are certainly attacked and presented as being such(wrong).

No. They are demonstrably wrong.

Yes, but it wasn't for no reason at all. It was from a reliable source of information which was simply misinterpreted. Evolution has had its share of embarassments over the same type mistakes.

No. Because of the facts. There number of facts congruent with evolution vastly outweigh the mistakes.

I understand the problem. But it is not irrefutable. It is simply a difference of opinion when observing the known facts.

No. It is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of proof.

If we both look up at the sky and notice that it's blue. And you say that it's blue because of the refraction of light through water vapor. And I say it's because Zeus painted it. These are not equal statements. One is provable the other is not. It is obviously not a matter of opinion.

What would YOU accept as a possible refutation of evolution? Im not looking for the "pat answer" here ok? Just one specific something that might make you, at least decide that it evolution may not be the only possibility.

I don't believe it's the only possibility but it's close and it's the only one we currently have that even begins to explain the facts.

Possible evidences that would cause me to disbelieve evolution:
1. Creation of a new species from "nothing" (i.e. by the word of God).
a. Under direct scientific observation.
b. Empirical evidence that this has occurred in the past (preferably from multiple fields and sources.).
2. Discovery and study of a species with no explainable/determinable method of heritability (e.g. No Genetic information) or that otherwise confounds biological explanation.
3. Invalidation of all, or at least most, of the congruent scientific evidence in disparate fields.

~Raithere
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Mathematical Disproof of Evolution

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Mathematical Disproof of Evolution

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Richie_LaMontre Registered Member

Raithere plagued by infinities Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches