Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8751 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-27-2017 12:27 AM
121 online now:
Coyote, Dredge, DrJones*, ramoss (4 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 809,075 Year: 13,681/21,208 Month: 3,163/3,605 Week: 505/933 Day: 3/40 Hour: 3/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2311 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 135 (336113)
07-28-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2006 3:53 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
FACT: The peppered moth, recapitulation, the false claims on the fossil record, etc, etc,...are or were all used as prima facie evidence for evolution. You know it. I know it, and everyone knows it.

To deny this fact is quite absurd and very telling on it's own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:53 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 885
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 47 of 135 (336114)
07-28-2006 4:03 PM


A topic warning
Please check the OP if you are in doubt as to the topic.

Whether or not the theories of evolution and common descent are accurate depictions on life on earth are not necessary to establish here. What needs to be established is the need or lack thereof for proponents of evolutionary theories to 'spread the word'.

We're borderline right now, but the drift potentiality is evident. Please keep the topic in mind when constructing your responses. Thanks.

Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:07 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2311 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 48 of 135 (336115)
07-28-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminModulous
07-28-2006 4:03 PM


Re: A topic warning
Good reprimand. Sorry for getting off-topic.

On the OP, I think if you look at many evos such as Dawkins, or Wilson and the other guy recently on Charlie Rose, you will see that many prominent evos have insisted on rather far-reaching and dare I say theological implications for evolutionary theory. There is a missionary zeal whether emotionally or intellectually, and the belief is that somehow evolution proves there is no God, or no Designer, or whatever.

It comes back to beleiving evolution validates an atheist ideology asserting randomness as the key feature to life and even the universe at times.

Imo, the fallacy of such thinking by prominent evos is stupendous and has an undue influence on the thinking and presentation and teaching of evolutionary theory.

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminModulous, posted 07-28-2006 4:03 PM AdminModulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 4:48 PM randman has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 49 of 135 (336120)
07-28-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by randman
07-28-2006 4:07 PM


Re: A topic warning
Imo, the fallacy of such thinking by prominent evos is stupendous

It would be fallacious if they said "Evolution, therefore no God". But AFIAK, they say, "Evolution, therefore goodbye to one of your favorite reasons for beliving in God." Of course, this depends if this is one of your favorite reasons.

and has an undue influence on the thinking and presentation and teaching of evolutionary theory.

False. There's nothing about the non-existence of God in any biology textbook I've seen.

As for your other misrepresentations, I shall be happy to discuss them at some other time: I see you were unable to debate any of the facts I presented, so I feel we're off to an excellent start.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : Still can't speel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:07 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:57 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2311 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 135 (336121)
07-28-2006 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2006 4:48 PM


Re: A topic warning
It would be fallacious if they said "Evolution, therefore no God".

Why don't you try telling them that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 4:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:07 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 5:52 PM randman has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 51 of 135 (336122)
07-28-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
07-28-2006 4:57 PM


Re: A topic warning
*waves*

hi, remember me? you're the ones who keep insisting that evolution demands atheism and we keep telling you how idiotic that is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:57 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 5:09 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 135 (336123)
07-28-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 5:07 PM


Re: A topic warning
hi, remember me? you're the ones who keep insisting that evolution demands atheism and we keep telling you how idiotic that is.

I don't know that I would call it "idiotic." There is an argument.

But to get to the topic, I don't think an advertising campaign for evolution would work very well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:07 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:15 PM robinrohan has responded
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 07-28-2006 5:39 PM robinrohan has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 53 of 135 (336125)
07-28-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
07-28-2006 3:27 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
First, why don't you bring some papers that seek to prove evolutionary theory is true rather than assume it is true.

Can you do that please?


No.

My request had nothing at all to do with the ToE being correct, or assumed, or whatever.

Read carefully:

Randman, would you please cite a couple of Evolutionary Biology papers from the professional literature and give a brief explanation of how they deviate from being legitimate scientific papers?

What I have asked you to do is point out the shoddy science contained in those papers.

Hell, you could pick a Geology paper, or a Population Genetics paper, or any other field of science that you believe puts out crap science, and point out where the researchers went wrong in their statistical analysis, or their experimental protocol, or whatever.

Show me how the science is poor.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:27 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 5:32 PM nator has responded

    
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 54 of 135 (336126)
07-28-2006 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by robinrohan
07-28-2006 5:09 PM


Re: A topic warning
no. there isn't. evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 5:09 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 5:20 PM macaroniandcheese has responded
 Message 56 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 5:22 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2055 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 135 (336129)
07-28-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 5:15 PM


Re: A topic warning
quote:
evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.

That is not preciselytrue.

Anything could have been created ex nihlo, as is with the appearance of having evolved.

It's that problem of people assuming they know what God/gods is/are like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:15 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 6:48 PM nator has not yet responded

    
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 135 (336130)
07-28-2006 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by macaroniandcheese
07-28-2006 5:15 PM


Re: A topic warning
no. there isn't. evolution has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the idea of god except to say that nothing that is was created ex nihlo as is.

There's a "moral argument," although it might be flawed. I'm speaking of the conventional Western God. And then there's philsophical materialism (everything is physical) which would seem to go along with evolution (that strikes a blow into notions of "soul").
And then there's the factor of determinism.

No, I would not call such considerations "idiotic."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 5:15 PM macaroniandcheese has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-28-2006 6:53 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 57 of 135 (336132)
07-28-2006 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
07-28-2006 3:34 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
Modulous-

As you are no doubt very aware this is standard debate format with some around here. Criticize papers and works they have never read and will never read because is is hard. As long as the ToE remains a vague, distant unknown it is easy to pick apart, heaven help us if we actually have to argue the truth.

With a high level of ignorance it is easy to label the whole system a belief, a religion. Once labelled as such any discussion about it becomes evangelical.

Also, I have composed a new topic to discuss landmark works in the ToE, but as it was your idea wanted to ask if it was okay before I post it.


Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 3:34 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2006 1:15 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2311 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 58 of 135 (336134)
07-28-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by nator
07-28-2006 5:13 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
Show me the papers then, and I will look at them and critique them.

Where are they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 5:13 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 5:57 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 07-28-2006 6:08 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 64 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:11 PM randman has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2158
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 59 of 135 (336137)
07-28-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by robinrohan
07-28-2006 5:09 PM


No Need for Advertising
But to get to the topic, I don't think an advertising campaign for evolution would work very well.

Advertising is usually used to convince consumers to buy something they don't need, and unlike evolution, is often used to convince consumers to buy something that is somewhat detrimental to one's financial or bodily health.

On the other hand, advertising seems to work for consumerist-oriented religious sects.

Maybe you are on to something, the concept of evolution is too benign in addition to being too self-evident, to require advertising to most rational beings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 5:09 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 07-28-2006 5:55 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15929
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 60 of 135 (336142)
07-28-2006 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
07-28-2006 4:57 PM


Re: A topic warning
Why don't you try telling them that?

Because that's not what they say, AFAIK. If you can show me someone who does say that, I should be happy to tear his arguments to shreds.

Feel free.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:57 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017