|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Darwinists? and other names for "evos" | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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...)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4668 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jeafl Inactive Member |
quote: 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 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6013 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024