Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 71 (9014 total)
45 online now:
kjsimons, xongsmith (2 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Happy Birthday: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 882,038 Year: 13,786/23,288 Month: 304/412 Week: 91/40 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Evolution Require Spreading The Word?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 31 of 135 (335917)
07-28-2006 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by arachnophilia
07-28-2006 3:09 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice. What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe, and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.

Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 07-28-2006 3:09 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by arachnophilia, posted 07-28-2006 4:13 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 34 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-28-2006 5:14 AM randman has responded
 Message 36 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:51 AM randman has responded
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:07 PM randman has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 37 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 32 of 135 (335921)
07-28-2006 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-28-2006 4:06 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
ah, ok, thanks for the clarification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:06 AM randman has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2687 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 33 of 135 (335946)
07-28-2006 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:01 AM


To know or not to know
To me, the whole point of life is to have a balanced outlook. If you can`t weigh both sides of a problem, then the chances are you will make errors in judgment. While there is a place for radicals of both ends of the spectrum on an individual basis, irrational beliefs in mass tend to run off the rails.

Militant religions try to steer believers away from examining their tenets in case they see the flaws in dogma. Leaders usually seek an external enemy to keep believers busy. Or crunch any internal dissent. Thus we had Original Sin (still a biggie), heresy (which works till a substantial number break away, when both groups have enemies to demonise), illiteracy (only priests permitted to read the bible, and for centuries it remained in Latin), noxious spirits (a leftover from pagan days), and now evolution.

When powerbrokers in the religion game saw the growing trend to examine the roots of their doctrines (textual criticism, geology, biology, even archaeology), they set out to demonise the new kids on the block. The majority of sheep, oops, believers fell into line without exploring too deeply and followed the party line. Latterly, the focus on evolution (and its partly-masked cousin, science) has become more strident as more evidence (y`know, ugly facts) keeps pointing out the flaws in supernatural voodoo.

Some sections of religion have partly embraced evolution e.g. Catholics, while the diehards refuse to yield an inch (or 25 mils if you are metric). Here we see intransigents gradually being pushed to the fringes as more holes appear in their reasoning. Realising that the strength of evolution relied on dispersing its wisdom via education, diehards have concentrated on blocking or watering down the evo influence. Who will triumph? That depends on whether you want to live in dreamland or find out finally what makes the world tick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teets_Creationist, posted 06-08-2006 7:01 AM Teets_Creationist has not yet responded

  
MUTTY6969
Member (Idle past 4884 days)
Posts: 65
From: ARIZONA
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 34 of 135 (335947)
07-28-2006 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-28-2006 4:06 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
What the fuck…are you kidding, take any bio course in any college and tell me where the evangelistic side is at. Sorry to say but there is no missionary work with the TOE, it is taught like cell bio or genetics…the teacher presents the facts and you go to the next subject.

Just because there is this great controversy among the general public and the religious zealots doesn’t mean there is much of one with people who have taken such subjects, I’m sorry but there is no way you are going to learn the same information on a subject just by reading a website as oppose to studying it.


You wanna be, uhh, blunt about what has taken place, sometimes when you don't measure, you just shuffle kids through. Then you wake up at the high school level and find out that the illiter -- literacy level of our children are appalling.
-- It sure are, Mr. Bush, it sure are... not to mention adults, Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:06 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:29 PM MUTTY6969 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 135 (335969)
07-28-2006 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
07-28-2006 1:10 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
You hit on something. Evolutionism has a messianic and religious aspect to it. it's not just science, and imo, it's not good science. What it is though is a powerful propaganda tool, imo.

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?

Or, in short, show how they are not "good" science?

You can choose any paper from any related sub-field that you like from the hundreds of thousands in existence, or I can dig up a couple for you if you like.

Time for you to substantiate this claim or stop making it.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 1:10 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:27 PM nator has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 863 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 36 of 135 (335972)
07-28-2006 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-28-2006 4:06 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
quote:
Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice. What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe, and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.

I strongly disagree.

I have no need for people to accept evolution on faith. I am more than happy for them to take in the facts which support the ToE and make their own analysis.

Tell me, do you object when people accept the Germ Theory of Disease or the Atomic Theory of Matter or the Theory of a Heliocentric solar System before they understand it?

quote:
Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....

The ToE can do no such thing.

Only critical thinking skills as opposed to blind faith and reliance upon reason rather than revelation can save us from a new Dark Ages that the Fundamentalist wish to return us to.

Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:06 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:24 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 37 of 135 (336093)
07-28-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by randman
07-28-2006 4:06 AM


Actually, the messianic term might have been a poor choice.

Yes, it's just part of the knee-jerk way in which creationists falsely accuse scientists of their own faults. Evolution "is a religion", Evolution rest on "faith" Evolutionists "spread the word", Evolutionists are "messianic" ... next, tell us that we're all Trinitarians, why don't you?

Incidentally, why is it that the worst thing you people can think of to say about evolutionists is that they're like Christians, and the nastiest thing you can think of to say about evolution is that it's like Christianity? Don't get me wrong, it still cracks me up every time. I just want an insight into your thought processes.

What I mean is evolutionism has a missionary or evangelistic side to it. The evolutionist has a need for others to believe...

As evidenced by the fact that ... ooh, biologists teach biology. Just like physicists teach physics, and mathematicians teach mathematics. It's like a religion, y'see.

Only completely different.

This is why no mathematician ever comes round to your door with a handful of tatty little pamplets asking if he can share the good news about algebra.

and the way evolution is presented is a believe first, then understand later type of thing.

This is plainly untrue. Of course the people debating you wish you to understand the theory of evolution. It is not their fault if you do not.

Now, messianic in terms of being a saviour,....well, I think that does exist to a degree among many evos as they think evolutionism can save people from fundamentalism, etc....

Yes, learning biology can save you from ignorance of biology. Just as knowledge of physics can save you from ignorance of physics, and knowledge of mathematics can save you from mathematics. So many messianic religions ... and all taught in schools. Tut tut, whatever happened to the First Amendment, eh?

The one thing which makes biology special is that it has come under attack by a cult, and so requires defending from their lies.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : Speeling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:06 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:22 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 38 of 135 (336096)
07-28-2006 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2006 3:07 PM


Evolutionism does require faith
It's inherently religious and non-empirical.

The point is not that evos are like Christians, but that they claim to be science-based, but it's really pseudo-science which is why some blatant errros are so difficult to change regardless of the facts. The facts all contradict mainstream evolution. The fossil record doesn't match; the set of iconic proofs for evolution are false, etc, etc,....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:07 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 39 of 135 (336097)
07-28-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by nator
07-28-2006 6:51 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
I am more than happy for them to take in the facts which support the ToE and make their own analysis.

It sure doesn't seem that way since you falsely accuse that objectively look at the facts and reject evolutionary models as somehow being false or intellectually dishonest or something along those lines.

The bottom line for me is that ToE does not match the facts, plain and simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:51 AM nator has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 40 of 135 (336099)
07-28-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
07-28-2006 6:42 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
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?

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?

The simple truth is evolutionary theory was accepted, based on false evidence, long before legitimate scientific publication in journals (by today's standards). What was published was often false (such as Haeckel's drawings and the whole Biogenetic theory), but that didn't stop evos from insisting such false things were true, even for over 100 years, and perhaps still today.

The fossil record over the years is ample evidence gradualistic evolution never occurred, but evos still cling to the myth despite all the evidence against it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:42 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2006 3:34 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 53 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 5:13 PM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 41 of 135 (336101)
07-28-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MUTTY6969
07-28-2006 5:14 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
the teacher presents the facts and you go to the next subject

What facts? You mean the peppered moth story, the myth of recapitulation, the myth that the fossil record shows gradualistic evolution when it shows the opposite, the use of undefined terms such as "random mutations", etc, etc,.....

If there were genuine facts behind the theory, I wouldn't make these charges, but there isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-28-2006 5:14 AM MUTTY6969 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:39 PM randman has responded
 Message 80 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-30-2006 12:33 AM randman has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 798 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 135 (336104)
07-28-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by randman
07-28-2006 3:27 PM


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

...

The simple truth is evolutionary theory was accepted, based on false evidence, long before legitimate scientific publication in journals (by today's standards).

I take it, from this off-topic response, the answer to the request "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?", is, "No, I'd rather not"?

Actually, it might be an interesting thread to go over the landmark papers and works that went towards Evolutionary Theory. I'll have to remember that so I can start it some time.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:27 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-28-2006 5:26 PM Modulous has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 43 of 135 (336106)
07-28-2006 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by randman
07-28-2006 3:29 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
What facts? You mean the peppered moth story,

If you like, though there are better examples.

the myth of recapitulation

No, because this is neither a fact nor part of the theory of evolution.

See how useful it would have been if someone had taught you the theory of evolution?

the myth that the fossil record shows gradualistic evolution

Again, this is neither a fact nor a part of the theory of evolution.

the use of undefined terms such as "random mutations", etc,

The fact that you cannot define this term does not mean that it is undefined.

Again we see the advantages of a decent education.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:29 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:42 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3592 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 44 of 135 (336108)
07-28-2006 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Dr Adequate
07-28-2006 3:39 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
pathetic response on your part, devoid of any real arguments or facts....typical of many from your side I might add.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:39 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-28-2006 3:53 PM randman has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 45 of 135 (336109)
07-28-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
07-28-2006 3:42 PM


Re: It's not science, imo
FACT: the peppered moth is a minor but historically interesting example of small scale evolution.

FACT: recapitulation is not part of the theory of evolution.

FACT: the theory of evolution does not predict that the fossil record should be a movie of evolution.

FACT: your inability to define "random mutation" does not make that term undefined.

If youy feel able to dispute any of these facts, please try, and then I shall supply you with arguments. If, as a substitute for supplying facts and arguments, you call me "pathetic" and run away again ... then we shall all know what to think.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : Speeling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 3:42 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 07-28-2006 4:02 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020