Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinists? and other names for "evos"
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 72 (163746)
11-28-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Coragyps
11-28-2004 9:57 AM


Re: SofF
I don’t mean to start another thread here, but I have encountered many Darwinists/Evolutionists than have an aberrant view of the scientific method. They often insist that experimentation is not necessary and they usually insist that science can never prove anything- even for practical purposes (gravity for example).
But consider the fact that science has never shown how living things can come from non-living matter without the input and control of an already existing living thing; science has in fact repeatedly proven that living things can come only from living things. But Darwinists/Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation as true just the same. You accept as fact something that has not been proven and by you own standards cannot be proven. So how is this science while Creationism is religion?
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Evolution in whatever form you want to take it is a faith system just like Creationism is- but I have never and will never call Creationism a science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Coragyps, posted 11-28-2004 9:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AdminJar, posted 11-28-2004 9:47 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 35 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 9:56 PM jeafl has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 32 of 72 (163747)
11-28-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:34 PM


And Darwinists do not always agree about what the fossils they do have really mean.
Perhaps if you think about your own statement above you'll see the problem with calling all supporters of evolution "Darwinists", and then expecting them all to agree based on your labeling of them as such.
If anything, you should see that your statement shows that evolutionary science is not dogmatic, nor does it simply worship the work of Darwin. Instead, scientists base their views on evidence, and sometimes multiple intrepretations can come out of the same evidence.
Again, assigning an ideological label to scientists, such as "Darwinist", is taken as offensive because science is based on evidence, not ideology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:34 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:13 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 72 (163748)
11-28-2004 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:43 PM


Another Topic Warning
Your post is really off topic. Please try to move back towards the subject of this thread.
Others, please try to stick with the subject and ignore off topic issues.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:43 PM jeafl has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 72 (163749)
11-28-2004 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
11-28-2004 11:13 AM


Re: SofF
I have never met a professional Evolutionist i.e. an academician who was merely an "advocate for evolution" and not a full-fledged "dogmatic believer in evolution". I haven’t met many amateur Evolutionists who fall in the former category either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 11-28-2004 11:13 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by lfen, posted 11-28-2004 9:58 PM jeafl has replied
 Message 38 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 10:00 PM jeafl has not replied
 Message 68 by Quetzal, posted 11-29-2004 10:11 AM jeafl has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 35 of 72 (163751)
11-28-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:43 PM


Re: SofF
But Darwinists/Evolutionists accept spontaneous generation as true just the same.
No they don't. It seems you are again approaching science with dogmatic labels, then simply stating as fact your opinion as to what all scientists believe.
"Abiogenesis" is the theory dealing with the arisal of life from non-life ("spontaneous generation" is a different theory and has been falsified). Also, the Theory of Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Abiogenesis, so whether or not someone supports Evolution says nothing of their beliefs regarding Abiogenesis.
You accept as fact something that has not been proven and by you own standards cannot be proven.
Again, a big fat "NO".
Science deals almost solely with "theory" - "facts" and "truth" and "proven" are terms often misleadingly applied to theories.
So scientists may support a theory or not, or they may feel a specific theory is the best given the evidence. Science proceeds by providing falsifying or confirming evidence to refute or support a theory. In this sense, a theory can never be proven as true - even the theory of gravity, as you example.
Thus, if someone says to you "the Theory of Evolution is true", or "the Theory of Abiogenesis is fact", that person is not a genuine scientist. (And if you have a source telling you that scientists claim these things, it is probably Creationist propaganda...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:43 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by AdminJar, posted 11-28-2004 10:00 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 47 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:25 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4668 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 36 of 72 (163752)
11-28-2004 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:49 PM


Re: SofF
And you've met how many professional, and how many amateur evolutionists? And you've met them where? I'm asking about the size and randomness of your sample.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:49 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:28 PM lfen has replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 72 (163753)
11-28-2004 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
11-28-2004 1:56 PM


Gould’s conclusion about the fossil record’s ’sudden’ origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) is exactly what old earth Creationism predicts. God created living things in stages that took long periods of time and these created beings reproduced faithfully, with little change until they died out.
Young earth Creationists, such as myself, usually interpret the fossil record as the fossilization of ecosystems that were coexistent. Gould’s admission that the fossil record does not show a complete set of transitional forms coincides with the young earth Creationist model as well.
According to Gould, Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. How is this possible? How can we have macroevolution without speciation? If the fossil record does not indicate speciation, how can anyone conclude that speciation occurred? Or is this simply Evolutionists taking things on faith yet again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2004 1:56 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2004 4:27 AM jeafl has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 38 of 72 (163754)
11-28-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jeafl
11-28-2004 9:49 PM


Re: SofF
I have never met a professional Evolutionist...
How many "professional Evolutionists" have you met?
How did you specifically discern that they were "dogmatic believer[s] in evolution" rather than logical individuals who had weighed the scientific evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 9:49 PM jeafl has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 72 (163755)
11-28-2004 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by pink sasquatch
11-28-2004 9:56 PM


OT Warning
PS.
Please don't get dragged off the topic. This thread is about the reaction to Names for Evolution supports.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 9:56 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 10:04 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 72 (163756)
11-28-2004 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
11-28-2004 12:04 PM


Re: Transitionals Topic
Since I am only responding to what others have posted here, and I don't have time to go on a wild goose chase in another thread, would you kindly explain how my list is flawed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2004 12:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by AdminJar, posted 11-28-2004 10:07 PM jeafl has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 41 of 72 (163757)
11-28-2004 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AdminJar
11-28-2004 10:00 PM


Re: OT Warning
I was actually trying to bring it back on topic with that post; a lot of jeafl's comments regarding science and scientists are based on ideological assumptions that stem from ideological labels such as "Darwinist", or vice versa.
I'll try to be more clear and careful, though...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AdminJar, posted 11-28-2004 10:00 PM AdminJar has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 72 (163759)
11-28-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jeafl
11-28-2004 10:02 PM


Re: Transitionals Topic
Since I am only responding to what others have posted here, and I don't have time to go on a wild goose chase in another thread, would you kindly explain how my list is flawed?
No, folk will not respond here. Try to stick to the topic.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:02 PM jeafl has not replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 72 (163760)
11-28-2004 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
11-28-2004 2:13 PM


Re: To try to move back towards the subject.
How do you explain the visceral reaction I get when I use the term Darwinist when the offended person does not yet know that I am Creationist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 11-28-2004 2:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 11-28-2004 10:23 PM jeafl has replied

  
jeafl
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 72 (163761)
11-28-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by pink sasquatch
11-28-2004 9:43 PM


quote:
Perhaps if you think about your own statement above you'll see the problem with calling all supporters of evolution "Darwinists", and then expecting them all to agree based on your labeling of them as such.
I take it you would identify Donald Johanson and the Leakeys as Evolutionists rather than Darwinists. Then explain why these Evolutionists are not in total agreement regarding Lucy.
quote:
If anything, you should see that your statement shows that evolutionary science is not dogmatic, nor does it simply worship the work of Darwin. Instead, scientists base their views on evidence, and sometimes multiple intrepretations can come out of the same evidence.
If evolution is not dogmatic, explain why none of the 3 college level biology textbooks I have give any reason to doubt that Australopithecus is not in the human lineage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 9:43 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by pink sasquatch, posted 11-28-2004 10:22 PM jeafl has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6013 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 45 of 72 (163762)
11-28-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jeafl
11-28-2004 10:13 PM


I take it you would identify Donald Johanson and the Leakeys as Evolutionists rather than Darwinists. Then explain why these Evolutionists are not in total agreement regarding Lucy.
You are obviously missing my point, perhaps entirely.
The assigning of a label, no matter what that label is, to a field of scientists does not mean that all scientists in that field will agree.
Science isn't like joining a club where everyone agrees to agree - there is constant controversy, testing of theories, and revising of theories. Your addition of a dogmatic label does not change this reality.
Apparently you don't see the contradiction in your own statements:
- Darwinists are purely dogmatic.
- Many Darwinists disagree.
If evolutionary scientists were really simply a dogmatic, faith-based group, why would they ever disagree on major points as you bring up?
The answer is simple, because your "Darwinists" don't exist, but rather scientists who make up their own minds regarding theories and evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:13 PM jeafl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by jeafl, posted 11-28-2004 10:43 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024