Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, jar (3 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,865 Year: 16,901/19,786 Month: 1,026/2,598 Week: 272/251 Day: 43/58 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 3158 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 135 (335898)
07-28-2006 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teets_Creationist
06-08-2006 7:01 AM


It's not science, imo
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.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by arachnophilia, posted 07-28-2006 3:09 AM randman has responded
 Message 35 by nator, posted 07-28-2006 6:42 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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 3158 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 3158 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 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 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

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3158 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 83 of 135 (336764)
07-30-2006 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by MUTTY6969
07-30-2006 12:33 AM


Re: It's not science, imo
So now you present a blatant argument from authority with no substance or details, and you think that is reasonable?

You also refer to a mythical creationist website not cited by me here. Are you drunk or something?

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-30-2006 12:33 AM MUTTY6969 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by MUTTY6969, posted 07-30-2006 9:54 PM randman 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 © 2019