User talk:Bioliquid2fusion

A post was made to the talk page of the evolution article. The post was was off topic and very unlikely to result in any improvement to the article. The text has been moved to your talk page which is a more apropriate place to hold such a discussion (as you posted the original message). Wikipedia guidelines ask that users use article talk pages for the improvement of the article and not as a discussion forum. Barnaby dawson 09:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Criticism

I think that Aiden had a good point when he said that this article violates the NPOV policy. Scientifically speaking, the only thing evolutionists know for sure is that living things can physically adapt to their environments, which we can readily observe, study, and recreate to our heart’s content. It is a fact. Anything else is like looking at a crime scene (the observable world around us) and hypothesizing what we think might have happened (conspiracy theories). These are the presuppositions that encompass the study of two beliefs of origins: creationism and evolution.

Common ancestor and common designer are both non-testable assumptions based on interpretations of our observations. Morphological similarities could be coincidental and inconsequential, and does not necessarily rule out a common designer based on mere conjecture.
Natural selection is observable, but whether it has limitations based on design parameters, or it can morph a single cell into a human over billions of years is strictly a POV argument.
Biological similarities could be a well-designed application that allows us to gain nutrients and energy from other living creatures, or it could mean we all came from the same basic building blocks which grew more complex over billions of years, but both are speculations and cannot be verified.
The origin of life could be a spontaneous generation caused by electrical stimulation billions of years ago, or it could be a creation of life from a known being as described in a written account of history. Presuppositions as to the actual beginnings are not scientifically valid claims.
Distribution of fossils could be caused by a massive world-wide flood, or by billions of years of death and burial. The implication that there is a particular order to the fossils is widely disputed, and is conflicting in many areas of geological record. For example: vertebrates have been found in the Ediacaran strata, which is below the Cambrian strata, in which consequently, almost every variety of phyla can be found without so much as a viable ancestor fossil (simpler fossil) below it representing a supposed transition. Overlapping strata are commonly found, as well as polystrate fossils, and many fossils “out of place” according to evolutionary geological dating [1]. Radiohalos also provide a contradictory approach to evolutionists’ claims of billions of years of death and burial. Several accounts of dinosaur soft-tissue attached to bones are a blaring contradiction to the belief of 70-million years as well. Because the evidence could be interpreted either way depending on what assumptions are made as to the distribution method and the time span, to take one side is strictly a POV.
Mutations are observable and can be recreated and studied, and have even been shown to be beneficial in some rare instances. This however, cannot be claimed by evolution to be the proven, undisputed driving force behind evolution, when an information gain that increases functional complexity has never been observed, which molecules-to-man requires an immeasurable number of. Mutations could be assumed to be the self-perpetuating force behind evolution, or could be the result of a degradation of DNA due to the copious amounts of copies of copies of copies of genes over thousands of years in conjunction with environmental influences. To presume to know which the case is is to predicate the unverifiable.

For this reason, these points cannot be used in support of evolution as an unconditional fact, and rather represent your personal POV of your interpretation of the observable world. Your POV has no more merit than the creationists’ POV simply because you claim mass appeal and argue from authority. Science has not changed so much in the last few centuries that it no longer requires theories and hypotheses to be verifiable, testable and observable. Your continuous discarding of creationists’ claims as simply “religious pseudoscience” are shown to be outright hypocrisy when you break down your own beliefs and compare them to real science and attempt to subject them to the scientific method. My one argument is that although you will not consider contradictory evidence and all of your supposed evidence is based on huge unverifiable assumptions, please, stop proclaiming it all as a proven fact. At the very least, try to consider the NPOV position and not such a conceited, pig-headed, uncompromising position of absolute arduousness for your highly-disputed beliefs. Bioliquid2fusion

Every point you mention has deep flaws in it. The reason I do not reply to them in detail is because a)these points have been raised, discussed, and discarded many times over in the lifetime of this article and b)you have not actually proposed any changes to the article, but rather used this page as a discussion forum (which it is not). Please provide specific changes that you would like to see in the article and then back them up with reasons and publications. I ask the community not to feed this new turn in discussion unless the poster starts posting detailed changes that he/she would like to see in the article.--Roland Deschain 02:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page IS a discussion page supposedly used for improving the validity of the article, which I am trying to do. My points do not have any flaws in them, as they are factual statements from an objective standpoint which reveal those arguments for evolution to be highly debated assumptions that could very well denote creationism. I have proposed changes to the format of the article: in order to stay within the guidelines of the NPOV policy, these points which obviously are not subject to the scientific method and cannot be readily observed or falsified, are nothing more than opinion, and should be labeled as such. Why should I have to disprove your assumptions about the past with my assumptions about the past in order for you to change an article that wrongly expresses mass amounts of POV statements based on conjecture? If this is how Wikipedia operates, then why even bother with a NPOV policy to begin with? And how do you define science so as to include all your speculations about the past? Certainly not by alluding to the scientific method. Bioliquid2fusion

If you can source criticisms from reputable scientific sources then there is no problem. Criticisms sources from religious sources have to staying in the social and religious controversies, or if debunked by a scientific source, in the misconceptions section. Jefffire 10:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Roland and Jeffire. These are stock Creationist arguments with no scientific validity. More to the point, this is another instance of somebody saying that taking the scientific POV primarily in a scientific article is a violation the NPOV policy — this isn't true, read the policy itself. --Fastfission 12:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking all the factual validity and NPOV issues aside (Jefffire and Fastfission discussed those issues), what I want from Bioliquid2fusion is that he/she makes specific examples of how he/she would change the article. This is a far more constructive way to improve this article.--Roland Deschain 14:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you agree with them, because you cannot think for yourself, which is why you continue to avoid my point that the arguments I listed are only assumptions which are not verifiable or testable and therefore cannot have a "scientific POV." They are opinions that happen to have mass appeal in the scientific community, which does not qualify something as true science. True science must submit to the scientific method, or it is simply a non-testable hypothesis, or conjecture. What evolutionists can study, observe, repeatedly test, and recreate, such as natural selection and mutations, are true science. The things that they infer about the implications of these processes are based solely on their presuppositions of millions and billions of years and the lack of a creator, and are simply their speculation about past occurances which cannot be confirmed either way. Whether you hypocritically discard this fact, because you are so far indoctrinated into evolution, or accept that this is simply your non-science POV, it does not change the fact that I am right. Roland, this is how I would change the article: by changing all the assertions of evolution as indesputable fact into an admittance of belief by inferance based on the presupposition of the lack of a creator, and the dogmatic belief in millions/billions of years. How's that for constructive?

Bioliquid2fusion Let's end this discussion with a famous quote: Do not feed the trolls. Joelito (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second Joelito. Aiden was a troll, and here we are all over again. Bioliquid2fusion, show us the testability of ID; show us why all of the objective evidence in the world should be thrown over for some literalist's fantasy; and please explain why you use a computer built on principles that you disbelieve? Oh, and stop being rude to other editors ("because you cannot think for yourself"). --Plumbago 18:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- How many times can one person say something that blatantly is ignored at the expense of willing ignorance before the people who ignore it will comprehend what is said? Creation/ID/The Bible/God is NOT testable via the scientific method. Period. It is a presupposition based on belief in the authenticity of the Bible, and the belief that a majority of the processes, artifacts, and observational evidence points toward a young Earth that ‘’’requires’’’ an intelligent source, and not one that is billions of years old which originated from nothing for no reason at all. Evolution is NOT testable via the scientific method. Period. None of you have even disputed that fact even once in the many times I have mentioned it. I asked a direct question: How does evolution fulfill the requirements of the scientific method of being testable, repeatable, observable, and verifiable? Simple answer: It does not! This fact alone should tell you something about evolution’s scientific validity (or lack-thereof). Like I said before, I do not dispute the scientific validity of adaptation through natural selection, the occurrence of mutations (on rare occasions beneficial), biological similarities (i.e. DNA), nor the presence of fossils. None of these, however, are evolution. The bait’n’switch tactic of using the presence of these things such as natural selection, which you call microevolution, or just evolution, as evidence for your general hypothesis (macroevolution, or molecules-to-man evolution) that makes grand assumptions as to how everything originated and over what time-span, is simply not a substitution for real genuine science that follows the scientific method, and is deceitful to say the least. I find it humorous how anyone who attempts to invalidate your erroneous claims of evolution’s absolute superiority by presenting any contradicting evidence whatsoever, is labeled as a troll, which by the way is pretty rude Plumbago. I don’t get the part about the computer built on principles that I disbelieve, can you please explain that one to me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.216.46 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Roland, this is how I would change the article: by changing all the assertions of evolution as indesputable fact into an admittance of belief by inferance based on the presupposition of the lack of a creator, and the dogmatic belief in millions/billions of years. How's that for constructive?"

Please go ahead and start changing the article with the points they you have outlined above. I will counter with detailed scientific research that proves each one wrong. However, as long as you continue to solely preach on this forum rather than take your points and try to intergrate them in the article, I will follow Joelito advice and ignore you. All the best. --Roland Deschain 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, please do NOT go ahead and start changing the article. Your points are ridiculous; common ancestry certainly makes testable predictions about evolution; genetics has pretty much put the nail in this coffin since about forty years ago. This sort of testing of hypotheses happens all the time, as you'd know if you had read any substantial amount on the subject. Meanwhile, "common designer" refrains from making any definitive statements about the nature of design (if not, pray tell what is the reason for, e.g., shared pseudogenes or other neutral elements); it is too timid to allow itself to be tested, for fear of being wrong. This is why it is not scientific and does not merit equal consideration with common ancestry. Graft 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Nice argument. Your logic is ridiculous. Common ancestry is an assumption based on your beliefs, and can better be explained by a common designer. How has genetics put a nail in this proverbial coffin forty years ago Graft? Do tell. Telling stories about how it happens ‘all the time’ does not take the place of it actually happening, I’m sorry to tell you. A common designer is of course ambiguous, unless you have some sort of insight into his/its character, and an explanation as to the account of creation, which is why we turn to a historical document explaining such things, such as the Bible. Just because you do not know the reason or function behind something, does not mean that there is none. Science has made that abundantly clear many times over throughout history, and such could very well be the case of ‘pseudogenes’, junk DNA, and vestigial organs. Once again, common ancestry is not a scientific conclusion, but one of presuppositions. Please explain the part about being too timid to allow for testing.

Don't encourage trolls by reacting to them

Michael Johnson, is this your handiwork? You still haven't contributed anything logical and meaningful to this whole argument yet have you? What he means to say is: "Since we have no valid responses and our beliefs are built solely on wild unprovable assumptions, hopefully the people with valid arguments against our dogmatic beliefs will go away if we ignore them, so we do not have to defend our logically flawed and hypocritical stance." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.56.216.46 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anon, no it is not me, I sign my contributions, although I agree entirely with it's sentiments. And the reason I am silent? Talking to you and your ilk is pointless. You are an idealogue, immune to reason. Besides, others far more eloquent than me have replied to all your arguments, over and over again. --Michael Johnson 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My ilk, huh? What reason am I immune to exactly? Is it that I will not allow myself to be indoctrinated into the dogmatic followings of evolution such as you have? Actually, these 'others' you speak of have not replied to all my arguments, they have only deflected them with religious indifferance and circular reasoning, or a hypocritical parroted response. What about my previous question about evolution and the scientific method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.216.46 (talk • contribs)

If anyone wants to advance any of these stock creationist arguments, please provide credible scientific references to support your argument. If anyone wants to see these stock arguments debunked, try paying a visit to TalkOrigins (as suggested at the top of the page). The science in the article is solid. Guettarda 23:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]