georg jetson
Regular Member
+1
The theory of the origin of species has acquired all of the characteristics of a dogmatic religion. It has become the dogmatic religion of the day.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Political Correctness and Darwin
- Thread starter 77zach
- Start date
+1
The theory of the origin of species has acquired all of the characteristics of a dogmatic religion. It has become the dogmatic religion of the day.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Indeed. Natural selection can be observed easily. However, the creation of a new species seems to elude us... though we're told it's fact.
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
within a species
Within their own kind would be more like it. Species is a man mad word to pollute God's word. God says in the Bible if it can bring forth it is the same kind. A dog wolf coyote and fox are all the same kind they can bring forth and reproduce. But they are different species. Same as a horse and a donkey and a zebra. But none of them have ever laid a egg and a spider popped out like what evolution demands. There are only about 8 thousand kinds of animals that is how Adam was able to name them in such a short period of time on day 6. Dog kind cat kind pig kind horse kind ect.
That is how Noah got all of those animals on the ark. He did not have a lion a tiger a mountain lion a bob cat a leopard ect. We have big dogs born to small dogs and even different collars of dogs come from their mothers. We have even seen 3 legged dogs which is opposite of evolution. It is a loss of information and only produced 3 legs but it is still a dog. :lol:
Within their own kind would be more like it. Species is a man mad word to pollute God's word. God says in the Bible if it can bring forth it is the same kind. A dog wolf coyote and fox are all the same kind they can bring forth and reproduce. But they are different species. Same as a horse and a donkey and a zebra. But none of them have ever laid a egg and a spider popped out like what evolution demands. There are only about 8 thousand kinds of animals that is how Adam was able to name them in such a short period of time on day 6. Dog kind cat kind pig kind horse kind ect.
That is how Noah got all of those animals on the ark. He did not have a lion a tiger a mountain lion a bob cat a leopard ect. We have big dogs born to small dogs and even different collars of dogs come from their mothers. We have even seen 3 legged dogs which is opposite of evolution. It is a loss of information and only produced 3 legs but it is still a dog. :lol:
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
Natural selection
Of course natural selection happens and the strongest survive. Try putting a poodle back into the wild with a wolf or coyote pack. Lunch would quickly happen. Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest. :shocker:
Of course natural selection happens and the strongest survive. Try putting a poodle back into the wild with a wolf or coyote pack. Lunch would quickly happen. Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest. :shocker:
jhfc
Regular Member
You folks are talking about speciation and it most certainly has occurred and been observed many, many times.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-evolution-species-requires-genetic.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Perhaps what you are having trouble getting your mind around, is evolution occurs in a small step-wise progression toward a best-fit of the current environment. We won't see short-term dramatic changes in an organism, nor should we expect to. It is a statistical process.
The accumulation over time of many small changes combined with (as one example, there are others) geographic isolation has produced many new species. This is what Darwin observed and wrote about during his visit to the Galapagos. Modern tools such as gene sequencing have only served to confirm the validity of the theory.
Nothing in any field of scientific inquiry contravenes the theory of evolution: Archaeology, biology, anthropology, genetics and so on. If anyone were to do so, they would win the Nobel prize, so creationists -- have at it. Good luck with that.
To deny the reality of evolution and the common descent of organisms is be willfully ignorant. Google is your friend. Getting your layman's science view from a pastor is ill-advised as they tend to be just as ignorant as their flock.
Talk origins refutes most every objection to evolution presented in this thread and many more objections yet to be raised.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
The irony of the creationist claiming "there is no proof!" is particularly rich, given there is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims of any religion nor major swaths of their respective foundational "holy" books. Books containing tales replete with the walking dead, talking animals, the sun going dark, the Exodus myth, Mohamed riding his flying horse-thingy to Jerusalem and back and on and on.
This thread is depressing.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-evolution-species-requires-genetic.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Perhaps what you are having trouble getting your mind around, is evolution occurs in a small step-wise progression toward a best-fit of the current environment. We won't see short-term dramatic changes in an organism, nor should we expect to. It is a statistical process.
The accumulation over time of many small changes combined with (as one example, there are others) geographic isolation has produced many new species. This is what Darwin observed and wrote about during his visit to the Galapagos. Modern tools such as gene sequencing have only served to confirm the validity of the theory.
Nothing in any field of scientific inquiry contravenes the theory of evolution: Archaeology, biology, anthropology, genetics and so on. If anyone were to do so, they would win the Nobel prize, so creationists -- have at it. Good luck with that.
To deny the reality of evolution and the common descent of organisms is be willfully ignorant. Google is your friend. Getting your layman's science view from a pastor is ill-advised as they tend to be just as ignorant as their flock.
Talk origins refutes most every objection to evolution presented in this thread and many more objections yet to be raised.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
The irony of the creationist claiming "there is no proof!" is particularly rich, given there is no evidence for any of the supernatural claims of any religion nor major swaths of their respective foundational "holy" books. Books containing tales replete with the walking dead, talking animals, the sun going dark, the Exodus myth, Mohamed riding his flying horse-thingy to Jerusalem and back and on and on.
This thread is depressing.
Running Wolf
Campaign Veteran
Belief and Truth are not related. Neither is dependent on the other. Truth is never affected by Belief. Oftentimes Belief is not affected by Truth.
It is interesting that the concept that evolution destroys the concept of God and this was Darwin's intent is funny beyond all thought. Darwin was a Presbyterian elder and died with a strong belief in God. The idea of his work being anti God came about after his death by those who took his work and have mis-used it severely. Richard Dawkins has on more than one occasion stated that he has no evidence that God does not exist and that given the weight of evidence in the universe it is likely that God does exist. He knows how to milk an audience for their money that is for sure.
True science tests a theory to disprove it. This testing continues until either you run out of tests. This is why the "law" of gravity is back in theory again as new tests have challenged what we once though we knew (super conductors and magnets). Einstein, pointed out numerous times that the weight of evidence in physics points towards God's existence due to the extremely high amount of order. An example is a simple vegetable, the romanesco, which is a naturally occurring plant that produces a mathematically pure fractal structure while growing (any math majors want to give the odds on that happening). Then there is the honey bee and that makes for giving folks headaches as the odds on that one are worse then the romanesco. So please, do your homework and DON'T quote the good Mr. Darwin as an atheist as he was most definitely not one, nor was Galileo so don't go there either.
Political Correctness is nothing more then thinly veiled attempt to force other to be silent so that a minority opinion can indoctrinate the young and make itself the majority opinion be threat of exclusion (which is a strong threat to many people as we are social beings). Some of us will still refuse to comply and this board is full of those folks though not all in agreement (which is one thing the PC folks use against those not of their views). Personally the PC folks can go pound salt.
Now lets see how many folks who have done NO research come with their electronic tar and feathers....hmmm?
True science tests a theory to disprove it. This testing continues until either you run out of tests. This is why the "law" of gravity is back in theory again as new tests have challenged what we once though we knew (super conductors and magnets). Einstein, pointed out numerous times that the weight of evidence in physics points towards God's existence due to the extremely high amount of order. An example is a simple vegetable, the romanesco, which is a naturally occurring plant that produces a mathematically pure fractal structure while growing (any math majors want to give the odds on that happening). Then there is the honey bee and that makes for giving folks headaches as the odds on that one are worse then the romanesco. So please, do your homework and DON'T quote the good Mr. Darwin as an atheist as he was most definitely not one, nor was Galileo so don't go there either.
Political Correctness is nothing more then thinly veiled attempt to force other to be silent so that a minority opinion can indoctrinate the young and make itself the majority opinion be threat of exclusion (which is a strong threat to many people as we are social beings). Some of us will still refuse to comply and this board is full of those folks though not all in agreement (which is one thing the PC folks use against those not of their views). Personally the PC folks can go pound salt.
Now lets see how many folks who have done NO research come with their electronic tar and feathers....hmmm?
Evolution is the linchpin of modern biology. Young people who don’t understand it are missing out on an entire range of educational and career opportunities. Certain professional fields can be closed off to them.
Theories are based on the best empirical EVIDENCE available, not PROOF. There is an incredible wealth of evidence -- both geological and biochemical -- to support evolution by natural selection.
Creationism and ID are faith-based concepts. Their "evidence" consists of the allegories provided in the Bible, nothing more.
Theories are based on the best empirical EVIDENCE available, not PROOF. There is an incredible wealth of evidence -- both geological and biochemical -- to support evolution by natural selection.
Creationism and ID are faith-based concepts. Their "evidence" consists of the allegories provided in the Bible, nothing more.
jhfc
Regular Member
The portion about Darwin returning to Christianity is a creationist lie, long since refuted.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/ladyhope.html
Darwin was a Christian when he begun his voyage, lost his faith and never returned to it. That is the true story. As for Dawkins, I know of no such statement as "given the weight of the evidence in the universe it is likely God exists". Utter nonsense. Provide a cite if you can.
You (deliberately?) misstate Einstein's actual position on "God":
Creationist claim CB010 refuted. You clearly don't understand the "odds" for how evolutionary processes work. It's not as though the dice roll fresh each time. A better analogy is a lottery ticket, where each subsequent "roll", you get to keep prior winning numbers. And there are millions of simultaneous lotteries happening constantly. In this way, the odds of achieving closer environmental fit are dramatically reduced.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
This has nothing to do with Political Correctness, only reality. Reality is not up for debate, only discovery and understanding. It is unfortunate for you scientific reality undermines your mythology, but that is the nature of progress. Science put Thor/Zeus/Poseidon out of business as well. You can move forward with the rest of the educated world, or continue to wallow in pre-Enlightenment mythological dogma.
JHFC,
you practice ad homina and you say from your point that Darwin had no faith in God. I would argue that he no faith in religion but according to his son in a book released in 1888, he is well known to have a very deep faith in the presence of God (Charles Darwin's Religious Life:—A Sketch in Spiritual Biography (Page 569 -576)
Benjamin B. Warfield The Presbyterian Review, 1888; Princeton Theological Seminary). The problem you have is that you wish to make definitions that can not be made. As to the Romanesco, I beg to differ as more then one mathematics professor agrees that the odds are rather dim, but don't let 3 PhD's in the field put you off, come up with another attack of person as you seem to want. You still have not dealt with the bee's and are quick to be dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Much like the author of Mien Kampf.
I hope for you to see beyond the hate you have shown before the very short life you have is spent. I have studied science for a good number of years (decades more honestly) and see little science in the arguments of atheists. I wish you the best in that you live your life well, but have no interest in following the road that you purpose. Hopefully you can do the same but from your language that will not be good enough until everyone agrees that you and those who follow your view are the ones that have it right. I hope you realize that mindset borders on places that the sane do not go.
Oh and on the point of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic
Must not of been important enough for the US media.
you practice ad homina and you say from your point that Darwin had no faith in God. I would argue that he no faith in religion but according to his son in a book released in 1888, he is well known to have a very deep faith in the presence of God (Charles Darwin's Religious Life:—A Sketch in Spiritual Biography (Page 569 -576)
Benjamin B. Warfield The Presbyterian Review, 1888; Princeton Theological Seminary). The problem you have is that you wish to make definitions that can not be made. As to the Romanesco, I beg to differ as more then one mathematics professor agrees that the odds are rather dim, but don't let 3 PhD's in the field put you off, come up with another attack of person as you seem to want. You still have not dealt with the bee's and are quick to be dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Much like the author of Mien Kampf.
I hope for you to see beyond the hate you have shown before the very short life you have is spent. I have studied science for a good number of years (decades more honestly) and see little science in the arguments of atheists. I wish you the best in that you live your life well, but have no interest in following the road that you purpose. Hopefully you can do the same but from your language that will not be good enough until everyone agrees that you and those who follow your view are the ones that have it right. I hope you realize that mindset borders on places that the sane do not go.
Oh and on the point of Richard Dawkins:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/religion/religion/45552/outspoken-atheist-dawkins-admits-he-agnostic
Must not of been important enough for the US media.
Last edited:
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
speciation
Never met someone with so much hate and ignorance. Speciation is a man made word deliberately created to confuse people. It does not and never will exist. A dog a wolf and a coyote and a fox are all different species but they are all THE SAME KIND. Rabbits in FL can breed with the rabbits in Minn and the rabbits in Minn can bread with the rabbits in AK but the rabbits in FL can not breed with the rabbits in AK. Geographic isolation yes new species NO any 3 year old can tell you they are still RABBITS. They did not change into frogs of flies or ferrets. Same thing with the seagulls in England, Iceland, and New Newfoundland. They started as a bird and finished up as a bird. Duhhhhhhhh!!!!!:shocker::shocker::shocker:
Never met someone with so much hate and ignorance. Speciation is a man made word deliberately created to confuse people. It does not and never will exist. A dog a wolf and a coyote and a fox are all different species but they are all THE SAME KIND. Rabbits in FL can breed with the rabbits in Minn and the rabbits in Minn can bread with the rabbits in AK but the rabbits in FL can not breed with the rabbits in AK. Geographic isolation yes new species NO any 3 year old can tell you they are still RABBITS. They did not change into frogs of flies or ferrets. Same thing with the seagulls in England, Iceland, and New Newfoundland. They started as a bird and finished up as a bird. Duhhhhhhhh!!!!!:shocker::shocker::shocker:
JamesCanby
Activist Member
Question for you: How old is the Earth?
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
jhfc
Regular Member
Where? Refuting points and pointing out common creationist lies is not an ad hom. Ad homs are turf of the creationists as they have nothing to back up their empty, ridiculous claims.
"The presence of God", whatever that means. In the man's own words:
Ultimately, Darwin's or Einstein's views on gods, religions or faeries are immaterial and a red herring. They have no bearing on the validity of evolution.
Ad hom, Godwin law (seig heil!) and an argument from ignorance. Keep trying. You are digging deeper. I'll see your 3 PhDs and raise you 1,000 biologists. Let your PhDs publish their findings demolishing the theory of evolution and win the Nobel Prize. And yet, they don't. Why not? Hint: because they can't.
I have no hate, but rather a love for reality, whatever it may be. I admit I hold no fondness for the willful ignorance on display in this thread. We are talking about evolution, not atheism. There is no doubt evolution is scientifically sound and supported by all known evidence. It is this uncomfortable fact that forces the believer to use shameful tactics such as red herring diversions and ad hom attacks. It is pathetic.
The article says just the opposite of what you earlier claimed. You might want to read more carefully next time.
Oops.
You said:
Was that misrepresentation intentional? Do you fact-check what you write? You should. Seriously.
You see, I'm used to creationists and their tricks. They must slander, lie and misrepresent as that is all they have. They've done no experiments. They have no facts. They have no data. They have nothing but rhetoric and an old book of mythology.
Yes you most certainly do and as such you are still only working with a theory, not a scientific law. Keep yelling you are proving the point as Richard Dawkins in that article also stated that he is agnostic, so who is quoting to fit his argument? Again have a good life and maybe you can see beyond the selfish gene that so many evolutionist/atheist preach as being a good thing. You will get no more reply from me, as spitting into the wind is always an unwise act.
Less than 10,000 years old like real science tells us.
Wrong even by extremely simplistic scientific models: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth#Early_calculations
That's explained by genetic mutations, which were discovered after Darwin.
Last edited:
jhfc
Regular Member
Less than 10,000 years old like real science tells us.
And yet the science easily refutes any such ridiculous claim:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php
The ice core data ties *extremely* closely with other sources such as dates of known volcanic eruptions.
No global flood either in the last million years - lol.
Last edited:
jhfc
Regular Member
Yes and gravity is also a theory. Try jumping off a building and see how theoretical it feels when you bounce off the ground. Once again, a scientific theory does not have the same meaning as "wild ass guess". A scientific theory is supported by facts, evidence, observation, experimentation and *explains* those things and can make *predictions*; something no creationist can do. What prediction has a creationist ever made that was subsequently verified? That's right. Nothing.
On Dawkins, I showed you clearly misrepresented what Dawkins said. Shameless diversion on your part again.
I have no doubt you will spill your bilge again without addressing your ignorance; it is the creationist way.
Mr Birdman
Regular Member
genetic mutations
Like what? I have seen lots of mutations like a 6 legged cow short legged sheep, fly with 4 wings it does not fly so I guess that would be a crawl not a fly. Since there are no examples of beneficial mutations we can only talk about harmful mutations which would be opposite of evolution since the creature is loosing information and is born with some kind of birth defect. They are not gaining any thing.
Like what? I have seen lots of mutations like a 6 legged cow short legged sheep, fly with 4 wings it does not fly so I guess that would be a crawl not a fly. Since there are no examples of beneficial mutations we can only talk about harmful mutations which would be opposite of evolution since the creature is loosing information and is born with some kind of birth defect. They are not gaining any thing.