100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Problem With Evolution? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This is the oddest discussion on evolution I have ever encountered. The only conclusion I can draw is: Evolution=Science, Intelligent Design= Thinly disguised attempt at enforcing Xian Theocracy. Unless I missed something I take it you have never heard of the panspermia hypothesis. Would that mean transferred as opposed to created by................... It's the theory of certain atheists that life originated on another planet and that life on earth may have intentionally been created by an alien intelligence. Richard Dawkins has admitted that this theory might have value. Intelligent Design is often suggested to be a "Christian" belief, but there are atheists who see problems with abiogenesis on earth and also support the theory of intelligent design. Silly cone heads.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
ApertureScience
on
Tue 01/31/12 05:13 PM
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer This pigeon just put all you atheists into checkmate. Hardly. You may have moved a pawn but saying you "just put all you atheists into checkmate" is rather like... hell, a theist saying he "just put all you atheists into checkmate" after offering a smidgen of a fraction of an argument to counter the centuries of evidence and reason which has piled up against his mythological beliefs (apologies for being redundant but this was the only apt comparison). PS: I haven't checked this thread in a couple of days & didn't expect it to run for 13 pages, so forgive me if it takes a while to catch up. Thankya |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer This pigeon just put all you atheists into checkmate. Hardly. You may have moved a pawn but saying you "just put all you atheists into checkmate" is rather like... hell, a theist saying he "just put all you atheists into checkmate" after offering a smidgen of a fraction of an argument to counter the centuries of evidence and reason which has piled up against his mythological beliefs (apologies for being redundant but this was the only apt comparison). PS: I haven't checked this thread in a couple of days & didn't expect it to run for 13 pages, so forgive me if it takes a while to catch up. Thankya Okay, let me explain this to you. You asked the following: Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin? Sorry to break it to you buddy boy, but the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about "punctuated equalibria". You are dogmatic in your beliefs, you are so sure that they are true, that you don't even need to know what they are. That's what I schooled you on or would have, if you had read the first page of the thread. What's that you say? That wasn't really the point and who cares if it's now punctuated equalibria, it's still a theory of evolution? Well, friend, there are more Christians who believe in the theory of evolution (notice I didn't say "as proposed by Darwin) than there are atheists in the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Stephen Jay Gould sure punctuated my equilibrium. Yes I was one of those guys he talked about yelling at him. LOL! 2. I wear clothes and am as hairy as Lon Chaney Jr. in the Wolfman, sounds Lamarkian to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
• "Debating Creationists on the topic of Evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." - Scott D. Weitzenhoffer This pigeon just put all you atheists into checkmate. Hardly. You may have moved a pawn but saying you "just put all you atheists into checkmate" is rather like... hell, a theist saying he "just put all you atheists into checkmate" after offering a smidgen of a fraction of an argument to counter the centuries of evidence and reason which has piled up against his mythological beliefs (apologies for being redundant but this was the only apt comparison). PS: I haven't checked this thread in a couple of days & didn't expect it to run for 13 pages, so forgive me if it takes a while to catch up. Thankya Okay, let me explain this to you. You asked the following: Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin? Sorry to break it to you buddy boy, but the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about "punctuated equalibria". You are dogmatic in your beliefs, you are so sure that they are true, that you don't even need to know what they are. That's what I schooled you on or would have, if you had read the first page of the thread. What's that you say? That wasn't really the point and who cares if it's now punctuated equalibria, it's still a theory of evolution? Well, friend, there are more Christians who believe in the theory of evolution (notice I didn't say "as proposed by Darwin) than there are atheists in the world. Well, I noticed that *you* also didn't say (at least in this thread) that *you* used to be an atheist. Is this a Saul-to-Paul deal, where Paul used to persecute Christians before he 'evolved' into the writer of a good portion of the New Testament? Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. Read any good Sam Harris books lately? :) -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I noticed that *you* also didn't say (at least in this thread) that *you* used to be an atheist. Is this a Saul-to-Paul deal, where Paul used to persecute Christians before he 'evolved' into the writer of a good portion of the New Testament? I'm not sure how that is relevant. Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. I don't see anything wrong with it. When read in context, it's actually easily justified morally. Read any good Sam Harris books lately? :) No, I don't think I've ever read one of his books. If you are looking for book suggestions create a thread in the appropriate forum and I'll give you some. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 02/01/12 03:20 PM
|
|
Sorry to break it to you buddy boy, but the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about "punctuated equalibria" The modern theory of evolution is SOUNDLY based on Darwin's theory of evolution. Your a troll spider who much like Darwin only knew a small portion of the modern scientific theory of evolution. The difference he didn't have access to the information you do, he didn't have access to the technology you do, and therefore while you have no excuse he did. Saying something as silly as "Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science." proves your ignorance. Darwin was not wrong in the proposed mechanics, he just didn't have the full picture, and how could any expect him to with the level of technology available to him. This is an example of scientific reductionism, where a the theory is modified to better explain the evidence overtime without rejecting the predictive power of the prior theory. Natural selection, just like punctuated equilibrium is one aspect of the modern theory of evolution. If you think modern Biologist's reject natural selection as the KEY concept to evolution, then you have a lot to learn. If that wasn't what you meant then your hyperbole got in the way of your point . . . as usual. Punctuated equilibrium helps explain drastic evolutionary changes, and does not in anyway subvert natural selection as a valid part of the theory. Perhaps you meant Phyletic gradualism, but then that would make nonsense of your rebuttal . . . SNAFU? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyletic_gradualism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to break it to you buddy boy, but the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about "punctuated equalibria" The modern theory of evolution is SOUNDLY based on Darwin's theory of evolution. Your a troll spider who much like Darwin only knew a small portion of the modern scientific theory of evolution. Saying something as silly as "Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science." proves your ignorance. Darwin was not wrong in the proposed mechanics, he just didn't have the full picture, and how could any expect him to with the level of technology available to him. Natural selection, just like punctuated equilibrium is one aspect of the modern theory of evolution. I didn't say anything about Natural selection. That part is still accepted. The rejected part is Darwin's theory that evolution is a slow process that takes millions of years. I pointed that out in my first post. So I'm still right about what I posted, Darwin's theory of evolution HAS been rejected by science, while certain aspects were adopted into newer theories. I know it's hard to accept that I can be right, but the truth is, I'm rarely wrong. It's a curse. It's just your bigoted bias that prevents you from acknowledging this fact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 02/01/12 03:28 PM
|
|
Sorry to break it to you buddy boy, but the "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science. If you knew what you were talking about, you would be talking about "punctuated equalibria" The modern theory of evolution is SOUNDLY based on Darwin's theory of evolution. Your a troll spider who much like Darwin only knew a small portion of the modern scientific theory of evolution. Saying something as silly as "Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" has been soundly rejected by modern science." proves your ignorance. Darwin was not wrong in the proposed mechanics, he just didn't have the full picture, and how could any expect him to with the level of technology available to him. Natural selection, just like punctuated equilibrium is one aspect of the modern theory of evolution. I didn't say anything about Natural selection. That part is still accepted. The rejected part is Darwin's theory that evolution is a slow process that takes millions of years. I pointed that out in my first post. So I'm still right about what I posted, Darwin's theory of evolution HAS been rejected by science, while certain aspects were adopted into newer theories. I know it's hard to accept that I can be right, but the truth is, I'm rarely wrong. It's a curse. It's just your bigoted bias that prevents you from acknowledging this fact. His conclusion that Phyletic gradualism, was the rule and not the exception was perfectly understandable and in no way removes the validity of his original theory of evolution by natural selection. This is a clear case of Dunning Kruger effect. You think your soooo freaking smart and make these statements which are either so hyperbolic, or so generalized as to be nonsense. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins argues that such constant-rate gradualism is not present in the professional literature, thereby the term only serves as a straw-man for punctuated equilibrium advocates. In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues against the idea that Charles Darwin himself was a constant-rate gradualist, as suggested by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. In the first edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin stated that "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus".[5] Here how about some granularity of understanding instead of sweeping hyperbole. But even if Gould and Eldredge were right that Darwin held that gradualism was a given, it still does not invalidate Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection. The mechanics of that theory are still the core of the modern theory today. That fact alone makes your statement nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your position is "Part of the theory is still accepted, so there! *sticks out tongue*"? Okay, if that's your argument, so be it. I just wouldn't want to try to defend that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. I don't see anything wrong with it. When read in context, it's actually easily justified morally. I rest my case. Anyone using religious dogma to justify the slaughter of children IS mired in dogmatism. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Spidercmb
on
Wed 02/01/12 04:33 PM
|
|
Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. I don't see anything wrong with it. When read in context, it's actually easily justified morally. I rest my case. Anyone using religious dogma to justify the slaughter of children IS mired in dogmatism. -Kerry O. Anyone who is morally outraged by events he claims never happened has too much time on his hands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Knowing too, that you believe that there was nothing morally wrong with the Moses and the Israelites committing genocide against Old Testament peoples like the Midianites, one could make a pretty good case about your being similarly mired in dogmatism. I don't see anything wrong with it. When read in context, it's actually easily justified morally. I rest my case. Anyone using religious dogma to justify the slaughter of children IS mired in dogmatism. -Kerry O. Anyone who is morally outraged by events he claims never happened has too much time on his hands. If you're gonna demote the stuff in the bible to never have happened, how do we know things in "history" ever happened? Not recent history of course for their is documented proof, but history say 1000 years ago. There is no "proof" for these things except what you allow them to convince you of. There is absolutely no way to validate any "evidence" of anything when speaking of that length of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin? Why is it so hard for them to accept that after a few thousand years of development mankind began to use the brainpower granted them [by God?] to observe the natural world and develop an explanation of the origin and evolution of biological beings using reason, logic and evidence - rather than the guesswork and superstison of primitive desert-dwellers who knew far less than their descendants would? Why should a 7000(?) year old theory be held accountable to a 150 year old theory? It was forgivable of primitive Man to believe in Geocentricism, since from our perspective is does indeed appear that the heavens revolve around a static Earth. Now we know the truth about our planet's position in the cosmos - but we do not grant the theory of Geoncentricism the same respect that we do of Creationism, yet we now have far better explanations for the origins of life than those hypothesised by ancient Hebrews. So why is it that modern-day theists easily accept that our planet orbits around a star yet find it so difficult to acknowledge that humans are just another species of animal? Why believe in gravity but not evolution? Gravity is an evolutionary assistant. When a child falls enough times it learns to walk... Evolving... When mankind started using its brain... it ate of the fruit. We are the tree. Knowledge comes in evolutionary bites. One must fall a few times in the gravity of the world of spirit... Before evolving in the world of Reality to the point where spirit is a daily part of life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So your position is "Part of the theory is still accepted, so there! *sticks out tongue*"? Okay, if that's your argument, so be it. I just wouldn't want to try to defend that. Darwins interpretation of his data is not considered as valid. The theory itself (when data is applied in other ways) is still quite accepted. and way closer to the truth than pure creationism by dint of magic, god, super aliens or other such myth based theories. Indeed for God to have created a physical universe he would have NEEDED to use such a tool as Evolution to bring it about. Else it would colapse under its own sudden begining and fragment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Darwins interpretation of his data is not considered as valid. The theory itself (when data is applied in other ways) is still quite accepted. The theory of evolution is accepted science. "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin" is not. and way closer to the truth than pure creationism by dint of magic, god, super aliens or other such myth based theories. Those are theories of biogenesis, not evolution. You are comparing apples to oranges. Indeed for God to have created a physical universe he would have NEEDED to use such a tool as Evolution to bring it about. Else it would colapse under its own sudden begining and fragment. No, that's simply not true. God is omnipotent. Anything that can be accomplished with pure power God can do. Therefore, God could have created the universe 5 seconds ago with the appearance of age and fill your head with false memories and you wouldn't know. It's absolutely silly to posit the existence of an omnipotent God and then question his ability to do something that is clearly possible given unlimited power. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
AdventureBegins
on
Wed 02/01/12 10:19 PM
|
|
"Those are theories of biogenesis, not evolution. You are comparing apples to oranges."
Biogenesis IS a form of evolution. and Apples and Oranges ARE comparable organizisms... They are both fruit of a tree... and as did adam. all trees come from the same seed. Some simply evolved to oranges and some to apples. Being omnipotent means God knows where creation is at any given moment. Yet all time is available to him. Why would he even need to hurry? His now is from before we were aware to your current moment in now... and to the current moment of now for EVERY GENERATION OF MAN... farther into the future than you can imagine. The myths limit your ability to see... yet they are but a thin veil... God if far greater than any words in a book can describe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Thu 02/02/12 02:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Morning Song, I agree. |
|
|
|
|
