|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Some Evidence Against Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6039 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
1. To call "scientism" a "branch of science" is at best misleading. Scientism is a belief that may be held by a scientist or a non-scientist. Few folks here would defend scientism, although some might. I sure won't.
2. To call neo-Darwinism "Part of scientism" is simply wrong. I know many theists who accept Neo-darwinism. Thus, neo-darwinism can not be part of atheistic scientism. You say "this is not a matter of opinion" and you are correct: it is not a matter of opinion. You are clearly, objectively wrong that neo-darwinism is part of scientism. 3. quote: In "The Origin of Species", to what does Darwin attribute the origin of life? God. Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. 4. quote: It is not the reason I debate. There are Chrisitan neo-Darwinists. Thus, you are wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, as you are fond of saying. 5. quote: Did I miss something? Where did Leakey say this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I didn't say Leakey said it, you intentionally took me out of context.
I was making a point and if you do not understand the point then this is also intentional. What we have here is the deliberate twisting of things I said. You also want to bring up theistic evolition of which I said was not the subject probably at least 10 different times. All of my commentary was directed at scientism which was correctly defined. You have "outed" yourself to be ignorant of what scientism is and the purpose of neo-Darwinism. It doesn't matter what you say or claim about scientism or neo-Darwinism. As far as your belief as to what Darwin believed about God - this confirms your massive ignorance. We have nothing to debate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Ned : I am truly surprised with this reply.
I will consider this exchange between us closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Crashfrog says that atheism and evolution are not synonymous.
Yes they are it is not a matter of opinion. You are ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Yes they are it is not a matter of opinion. You are ignorant.
Said the pot to the kettle........Whew!! Willowtree, that's just bizarre.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I do not have any predictions. I am offering the mystery posed by Milton.
IF mutation is by chance and it is random then Milton simply points out that we have vastly similar creatures evolving on two different continents which according to Milton must border on the miraculous. I understand what Milton is saying and so does everyone else. It simply is SOME evidence against evolution, thats all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7040 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: He's right. They're not. 40% of U.S. scientists believe both in evolution and God. 43% of the general public in the U.S. does (and that number is a lot higher in the rest of the developed world). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Crashfrog says that atheism and evolution are not synonymous. Yes they are it is not a matter of opinion. You are ignorant. I seldom get into my religious beliefs in this kind of discussion because I don't think they are relevant, but they are here. I am not an atheist. I am a supporter of evolution. I accept the facts that evolution has happened, that the theory of evolution is the best (and, as of now, the only) scientific explanation for the observed data, that the Earth is circa 4.5 billion years old, the Universe is circa 15 billion years old, that life is circa 3-3.5 billion years old, that there was no global flood within the last few tens of thousands of years. Your claim that it is not a mtater of opinion is corect ... but the fact of the matter, that is not a matter of opinion, is that evolution and atheism are not synonymous. Your lie insults tens of thousands of religious believers who do not accept your peculiar views. You are wrong and ignorant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog says that atheism and evolution are not synonymous. Yes they are it is not a matter of opinion. You are ignorant. Actually I'm more knowledgeable than you, being both an atheist and an evolutionist (and an English major besides), I'm in a better position than you to know what those words mean. Open a biology textbook and show me where it says "there is no god." Open Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory", a definitive evolutionary work, and show me where it says "evolution is predicated on there being no God" or anything similar. Show me where in the evolutionary scientific literature it says there's no god. Explain to me how evolution can be equivalent to atheism when some 20-30% of evolutionists are Christians. Explain to me how evolution must be considered opposed to religion when people of every faith hold evolution to be true. The Catholic Pope is an evolutionist, did you know? In several papal messages he's said that evolution is the only rational explanation for the development of Man's physical body, and of life on earth. Now, maybe you're not Catholic, but surely you don't think the Pope of all people is an atheist? Don't confuse your ignorance with mine. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what words mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
This topic is comming up on 300 messages. As such, it will soon be closed (the unwritten, but commonly known "topic bulky enough" rule).
Concluding statements? Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 196 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
mutation is by chance and it is random then Milton simply points out that we have vastly similar creatures evolving on two different continents which according to Milton must border on the miraculous. And which, according to those who understand genetics and evolution, is expected to happen once in a while. Especially since (as has been pointed out and you have ignored) the creatures are only vaguely similar. Your comment says more about Milton and you than it does about evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
emphasis added by me
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
[quote]Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. --Charled Darwin, Origin of Species scientism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
quote: From The Oxford Companion to Philosophy:
quote: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3075 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Do you think you are smarter or more honest than MIT whiz Daniel Harbour ?
Harbour is an atheist, a neo-Darwinist, a card carrying member of scientism and he wrote a book about it called "An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism " (2001) On the other side is Berkeley Professor Huston Smith who wrote a book called "Why Religion Matters" (1999 or 2000) Smith defines scientism from a creationist viewpoint which is compatible with Harbour. These are two of my sources for the definition of scientism. Now you can go ahead and stipulate scientism to mean whatever you like and then it will mean that for your posts and arguments. For the record, you want scientism to really mean nothing. The ism denotes religion and that is the contention of we creationists. Scientism is a religion and they worship brilliant scientist and his discoveries. You can deny this but it has been objectively observed to be true. This is what it is really all about to set yourselves up as the ones who have the answers. Secretly you admire the way religionists do it and the respect their early preachers commanded. Now your intelligencia are the Bishops and Priests operating just like they did. God didn't create what is seen - Darwinian evolution did. But the nonsense offered in this room is to deny the reason for being of neo-Darwinism. Anyone who does this is a liar intentionally clowning the argument or a genuine dunce who doesn't even know the basic philosophy behind your own theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Huh, of all my posts??? What did I say to set you off with that one? I almost agreed with you throughout. (at least as much as it is possible )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
IF mutation is by chance and it is random then Milton simply points out that we have vastly similar creatures evolving on two different continents which according to Milton must border on the miraculous.
Ah, has "virtually indentical" turned into "vastly similar" now? Since Milton said this:
Milton writes: When the skulls of the two wolves are placed side by side, it would take an experienced professional zoologist to tell them apart.
But when we looked at the pictures we can see that they are not identical at all. Now they are vastly similar. But similar is explained by convergent evolution as you were told. The so-called miracle would be based on the other claim implicit in Milton. That is, the genetics have to be based on identical mutations. You have been asked about that. You have yet to comment on it again. You have continued to confuse the skeletal similarity and the genetics. Could you clarify what you are trying to say? Milton suggests the unlikelyness based on duplicated mutations. But there is zero evidence for that.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024