|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is evolution so controversial? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". Why should I stop using it? The reason I use it to to make sure that no one misunderstand what I am talking about.
I'm arguing that the theory of evolution and common ancestry are essentially the same thing. You clearly do not know what evolution is. So answer this, is evolution possible without common ancestry?
It's possible to be a nominal bus driver and not drive a bus; it's not possible to be an actual bus driver and not drive a bus. Your examples are nominal scientists, not actual scientists. You do not become a real teacher the day you teach your first class, you're a real teacher when you graduate from college with a degree in education. Same goes for other professions. Sorry I don't buy your distinctions between actual and nominal!
Does a walker have to walk This is completely different from profession, you become a real doctor the moment you graduate.
There used to be a commercial that said, "I'm not a real doctor but I play one on TV." That's what your examples are. An actor pretending to be a doctor is not the same thing as someone with a medical degree. Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Cedre writes:
As I said, because it means different things to different people. ringo writes:
Why not? I keep asking you to stop using the term "Neo-Darwinism". I personally don't like the term for several reasons. For one, it over-emphasizes the contribution of Darwin; he's been dead for more than a century and many others have contributed improvements in the meantime. For another, the "ism" suggests something like a religious dogma instead of a scientific theory. Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism".
Cedre writes:
Evolution inevitably branches out from common ancestry. There's nothing to prevent species from evolving into other species.
So answer this, is evolution possible without common ancestry? Cedre writes:
When you graduate with an education degree, you're qualified to become a teacher. When you turn eighteen, you're qualified to become a voter. You don't actually become a voter until you vote.
You do not become a real teacher the day you teach your first class, you're a real teacher when you graduate from college with a degree in education. Cedre writes:
A creationist on a website who is preaching the antithesis of science is definitely only pretending to be a scientist.
An actor pretending to be a doctor is not the same thing as someone with a medical degree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
As I said, because it means different things to different people. Well that's not my fault.
Calling the theory of evolution "Neo-Darwinism" is the equivalent of calling the space program "Neo-Wrightism". Wow really? Says who?
Evolution inevitably branches out from common ancestry. Fascinating stuff! Now will you finally answer my question, is evolution possible without common ancestry?
When you graduate with an education degree, you're qualified to become a teacher. Word games, my friend! When you you graduate with an education degree you are not qualified to be a teacher, you are a teacher, you are qualified to teach!
A creationist on a website who is preaching the antithesis of science is definitely only pretending to be a scientist. Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
So yes Dr. Zuill presents his scientific reasons for rejecting evolution in this book. I don't care if you think his reasons are scientific or not. Your quote from the DI only asserts that their are scientific reasons given. It does not describe what they are. You need to show what those scientific reasons are, rather than simple asserting that they exist. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Word games, my friend!
YOur lack of self awareness is utterly amazing.
When you you graduate with an education degree you are not qualified to be a teacher, you are a teacher, you are qualified to teach!
You are not allowed to make up your own definitions. I have a degree in History but have never been employed in that. So does that make me a Historian. Someone that has a law degree but never passed the bar is a lawyer? You do know that an M.D. that has never practiced would not be given any rights and privileges of a trained and practicing M.D don't you. It is amazing how you are willing to twist and manipulate facts, words and whatever in order to seem like what you ahve to say actually has any basis in reality.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
The point Dr A is making is that is remarkable that there is so little controversy about evolution among biologists (you have asserted that this controversy exists but have yet to substantiate this) given they determination, motivation and political power the religious right has in America.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
I have a degree in History but have never been employed in that. So does that make me a Historian Of course you are in fact a historian! Your attempts to vilify qualified scientists is ridiculous!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE as that would contradict one of it's predictions.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Finding a cow in a Precambrian layer would be a falsification of ToE as that would contradict one of it's predictions. What are you on about dear Larni?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Someone with a degree in science doesn't have to pretend to be a scientists, he is a scientist! Not so. I hold a degree in psychology and yet I am not a psychologist. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Boring.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
Faith said that ToE was unfalsifiable. I showed how it could be falsified by find a cow in a Precambrian layer.
Hope that helps. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1519 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
Not so. I hold a degree in psychology and yet I am not a psychologist. Well, my Aunt got her psychology degree last year and called herself a psychologist from day one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
She should not have. A Psychologist is a protected title. To get it one must hold a doctorate.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
Just on a point of information, the USA is not the world. For some weird reason, the USA is an outlier in modern Western democracies in that it has a large Christian fundamentalist legacy. The rest of us don't see any 'controversy'.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024