Is Darwinian Theory Even Science?

[bripat9643]

I recall when the right wingers absolutely loved DARWIN.

Ironically, given the thesis of this thread, Marxism was in some respects a leftwing backlash against the excesses of rightwing Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism was actually the creation of left-wing progressives, you dumbshit.

 

[bripat9643]

"Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."

OMG...another fearful post avowing evolution....but without producing any evidence.

That's OK....you don't have to put in any effort: simply admit the theory, as is your post...is based on faith.

Wow....you guys sure get testy when your beliefs are found faulty.

Many books have been written on the subject. I'm not going to regurgitate all the thousands upon thousands of pages written demonstrating the case for evolution.

Where's your evidence for creationism? Don't go quoting the Bible unless you want everyone to laugh.

 

[Si modo]

"Whatever would make you think all scientists are atheists? More silliness."

Of course I never said that.


"Plenty of scientists are religious."
Glad we agree.

OK. So, I am completely confused on what point you want to make.

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

Of course not.

But this tangential "argument" of yours still does nothing to support your silly question about Darwinian theory being scientific.

It is (explained earlier by several).

Creationism is not scientific for the simple fact that it is not falsifiable - a requirement for a scientific theory. Sure, creationism is a theory, but certainly not a scientific one.

 

[Si modo]

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

"If they believe in some higher power, good for them....Creationism is inconsistent with reality."

A distinction without a difference.
Clearly, if God exists, i.e., 'some higher power,'....then he is the Creator.

A lovely non sequitur you've made there.

 

[Si modo]

There is no question that Evolution occurs. The fact that evolution occurs is supported by fossil, biologic and DNA evidence. The only theory relates to how and why it occurs

God has never been anything more than a theory. It is supported by no scientific evidence and relies on faith to support it's explanations.

1. "There is no question that Evolution occurs."
This may be so.....although there is a vast dearth of evidence.

a. "The only theory relates to how and why it occurs."
Now, why attempt to separate this from 'evolution'...unless you are acknowledging that Darwinian evolution is a questionable premise?

Point for me?



2. So...we allow the question of 'how and why'?
My point, exactly.
I get a kick out of your failures in logic.


This, from an earlier OP (see #65 above):

While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

and this: “ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”
[check it out: http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html]


3. The absurdity of your earlier post....and glad to see you learned not to repeat it....was the claim that 'evolution is a fact.'


a. This falls into that category:
"God has never been anything more than a theory."

So....we can each accept our own truth....both based on faith?
Great.

chunky gets dopier by the minute.

Thanks.

I was trying to think of a simple argument to that, but I'm just going to stick with dearth of evidence does not equate to disproof. Talk about logic....

In science, what we know is far, far less than what we do know. It's the nature of the beast, but our methods are fruitful and as long as we actually know what a scientific theory actually is, we don't waste our time on utter silliness.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Every last bit of biological, zoological and paleontological evidence supports evolution."

OMG...another fearful post avowing evolution....but without producing any evidence.

That's OK....you don't have to put in any effort: simply admit the theory, as is your post...is based on faith.

Wow....you guys sure get testy when your beliefs are found faulty.

Many books have been written on the subject. I'm not going to regurgitate all the thousands upon thousands of pages written demonstrating the case for evolution.

Where's your evidence for creationism? Don't go quoting the Bible unless you want everyone to laugh.

Why would I be concerned about anyone- or everyone- laughing.

Is that what you are afraid of?

 

[newpolitics]

1. Claypot...of course I " realize that the Earth is constantly changing,"!!!

I read your posts, and note that the world's IQ points remains constant, but must constantly be divided by an ever-increasing population.


2. "life merely responds to that change."
OMG!!

Admit it: you failed high school biology...didn't you?

Remedial, coming right up!

"[Jean-Baptiste] Lamarck believed that organisms tried to make themselves better during their lifetimes and that the improvements or changes they made would be passed on to their offspring.

I always pictured Lamarck's ideas like this. Did the blacksmith swing a big, heavy hammer all his life and get great big muscles, and then his little babies were born with big shoulders and big arm muscles. "I said WAAAAA!"

With the giraffes, Lamarck thought they stretched and stretched and stretched their necks all their lives, so their necks got longer from the effort of stretching higher and higher to reach leaves in the trees. Then their offspring would be born with longer necks.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."
What was Lamarck's theory on evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Again???
"Of course, Lamarck's ideas have been disproved a long time ago."

Clueless....that is the opposite of Darwin's theory!


3. Actually, I'm so happy you arrived to embarrass the other side.

Now, write soon!

You gave me a link to another discussion thread on yahoo, as if this is a credible source and is supposed to demonstrate a single thing?!! What is wrong with your head?

No one here is arguing for Lamarckian evolution, you dumbfuck. So stop mentioning his name. It doesn't mean he got everything wrong, and I don't know what his ideas have to do with the FACT that environmental factors influence evolution. To say otherwise shows complete ignorance to evolution.

I explain things to you…now see if you can understand this….for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well.

Do you realize, when you post, amoebas slap their foreheads with their pseudopods!!!


And they'd roll their eyes if they had any!!


When you fill out your tax returns, under ‘occupation,’ be sure to write “Jay Leno punch line.”

Right... If I were a psychiatrist, at this point, I would say: I think I see the problem! You are living in a solipsistic fantasy world where assertions are equivalent to knowledge and there is no uncertainty.

Try to actually logically connect your responses to what you are responding to, instead committing another red herring and attempting (and I do mean attempt) to mock those who don't follow you into oblivion.

You're obvious flaw is that, because Lamarckian evolution is false, you believe that any ideas in Evolution as we KNOW it today that are were also contained in Lamarckian Evolution makes those ideas in Darwinian Evolution false. This is illogical and untenable.

 

[newpolitics]

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in after the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.

I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science.


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html

Holy shit your crazy. I think you read too much politics and think everything has this ulterior motive. The only aim in science is the pursuit of truth which is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable objectively. Evolution has nothing to do with Marxism, at all, whatsoever. Marxism is a political ideology and philosophy. Evolution is a simple explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Please expound how these two are at all connected. Otherwise, stop making such obtuse and asinine claims.

 

[bripat9643]

That folks who have the belief that we seem to agree on are neither silly nor ignorant.

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

"If they believe in some higher power, good for them....Creationism is inconsistent with reality."

A distinction without a difference.
Clearly, if God exists, i.e., 'some higher power,'....then he is the Creator.

He never said anything about God existing. He just said if it makes people feel better to believe in God, then good for them.

There is no creator of the universe. The idea is a contradiction. The universe means everything that exists. If God exists, then he is part of the universe. How could he create something he is part of?

 

[L.K.Eder]

 

[IanC]

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in after the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.

I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science.


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html

Holy shit your crazy. I think you read too much politics and think everything has this ulterior motive. The only aim in science is the pursuit of truth which is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable objectively. Evolution has nothing to do with Marxism, at all, whatsoever. Marxism is a political ideology and philosophy. Evolution is a simple explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Please expound how these two are at all connected. Otherwise, stop making such obtuse and asinine claims.

I think newpolitics has a point. Marxism uses evolution as a tool to further its cause, evolution has no use or need for marxism.

I think mankind has a biological drive to create theism, just as it has a biological drive to acquire and use language. I am not sure what its purpose is but then it is always difficult to derive the proper viewpoint from within the system.

 

[rdean]

Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.

Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.

Understanding communication didn't stop with Alexander Grahme Bell.

It only stands to reason that understanding evolution didn't stop with Darwin.

Yet, how many on the USMB quote Franklin, Curie or Bell? None I can think of.

Right wingers are "huh?" That doesn't even make any sense. Of course not. Not to them.

Threads like this one make it clear why Mitt Romney wanted to bring immigrants with degrees here to this country. Poor Mitt understood that his base was unteachable.

 

[editec]

I find it more than somewhat hilarious that so many people who do not believe in Darwinist THEORY as it related to cosmology and zooology are 100% ON BOARD with the theory of SOCIAL DARWINSIM as it relates to anthropolgy and sociology.


To these hateful morons, survival of the fittest is a perfectly plausible theory as it relates to mankind's interactions with himself but entirely NON SCIENTIFIC when it comes to the LAW OF THE JUNGLE.

Seriously, how confused does on have to be to hold those two divergent POVs?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You gave me a link to another discussion thread on yahoo, as if this is a credible source and is supposed to demonstrate a single thing?!! What is wrong with your head?

No one here is arguing for Lamarckian evolution, you dumbfuck. So stop mentioning his name. It doesn't mean he got everything wrong, and I don't know what his ideas have to do with the FACT that environmental factors influence evolution. To say otherwise shows complete ignorance to evolution.

I explain things to you…now see if you can understand this….for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well.

Do you realize, when you post, amoebas slap their foreheads with their pseudopods!!!


And they'd roll their eyes if they had any!!


When you fill out your tax returns, under ‘occupation,’ be sure to write “Jay Leno punch line.”

Right... If I were a psychiatrist, at this point, I would say: I think I see the problem! You are living in a solipsistic fantasy world where assertions are equivalent to knowledge and there is no uncertainty.

Try to actually logically connect your responses to what you are responding to, instead committing another red herring and attempting (and I do mean attempt) to mock those who don't follow you into oblivion.

You're obvious flaw is that, because Lamarckian evolution is false, you believe that any ideas in Evolution as we KNOW it today that are were also contained in Lamarckian Evolution makes those ideas in Darwinian Evolution false. This is illogical and untenable.

One more time?

Sure.

Your wrote in support of Lamarck.


Dolt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC- the theory of evolution is just a tool in the toolbox, a subprogram in the computer program. it is used when needed but it isnt the whole thing. so far we only know little bits and pieces of the much larger picture and there is still lots of room for Intelligent Design or even a God.

Ptolemy recognized that there was a pattern to the astrological bodies but his explanation for it was immature and flawed. that didnt mean that there was no pattern, just that his explanation wasnt the right one. the Church used his work to stifle scientific inquiry for many years because they thought it would cripple faith.

Darwin's Idea may or may not be a mature understanding of a recognizable pattern but it is a first step into delving into a larger mystery. Life. life may just be an amazing coincidence, it may be something else, we dont know. but evolution only kicks in after the big first step.

partial knowledge (and its interpretation) can be used for good or evil, positive or negative, but only by people. the knowledge itself is neutral.

I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science.


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html

Holy shit your crazy. I think you read too much politics and think everything has this ulterior motive. The only aim in science is the pursuit of truth which is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable objectively. Evolution has nothing to do with Marxism, at all, whatsoever. Marxism is a political ideology and philosophy. Evolution is a simple explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Please expound how these two are at all connected. Otherwise, stop making such obtuse and asinine claims.

"Holy s___ your crazy."


That should be "Holy s___ you're crazy."

Dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If they believe in creationism, yes, they are silly. If they believe in some higher power, good for them....I bet it brings them peace.

Creationism is inconsistent with reality.

"If they believe in some higher power, good for them....Creationism is inconsistent with reality."

A distinction without a difference.
Clearly, if God exists, i.e., 'some higher power,'....then he is the Creator.

He never said anything about God existing. He just said if it makes people feel better to believe in God, then good for them.

There is no creator of the universe. The idea is a contradiction. The universe means everything that exists. If God exists, then he is part of the universe. How could he create something he is part of?

1. "There is no creator of the universe."

Where did the material that has become the universe come from?

If the provenance of said material is of no concern, then why expend any effort in discovering laws of how said material behaves?


2. "If God exists, then he is part of the universe."

Really, we should begin any argument with the definition of terms....and in no source that I can find is God defined as matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can go along with that.

I see a problem in this sense: Darwinism is Marxism masquerading as science.


Perhaps you might have the time to look at this:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/262043-darwin-and-marx-materialism.html

Holy shit your crazy. I think you read too much politics and think everything has this ulterior motive. The only aim in science is the pursuit of truth which is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable objectively. Evolution has nothing to do with Marxism, at all, whatsoever. Marxism is a political ideology and philosophy. Evolution is a simple explanation of the diversity of life we see today. Please expound how these two are at all connected. Otherwise, stop making such obtuse and asinine claims.

I think newpolitics has a point. Marxism uses evolution as a tool to further its cause, evolution has no use or need for marxism.

I think mankind has a biological drive to create theism, just as it has a biological drive to acquire and use language. I am not sure what its purpose is but then it is always difficult to derive the proper viewpoint from within the system.

“ The theory of evolution is simply materialist philosophy applied to nature, ….Darwin was described by Leon Trotsky as "the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter."
Alan Woods, Ted Grant. "Marxism and Darwinism,Reason in Revolt: Marxism and Modern Science.”




While there were theories of evolution before Darwin’s, earlier versions presumed God or a Mind with a design or purpose. Darwin’s view aligned with Marxist economic thesis, in that 'matter,' rather than mind, is the driving force. For Darwin, life is empty of any purpose other than the primary directive of nature, reproduction: the survival of the species.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Understanding electricity didn't stop with Ben Franklin.

Understanding radioactivity didn't stop with Marie Curie.

Understanding communication didn't stop with Alexander Grahme Bell.

It only stands to reason that understanding evolution didn't stop with Darwin.

Yet, how many on the USMB quote Franklin, Curie or Bell? None I can think of.

Right wingers are "huh?" That doesn't even make any sense. Of course not. Not to them.

Threads like this one make it clear why Mitt Romney wanted to bring immigrants with degrees here to this country. Poor Mitt understood that his base was unteachable.

So.....did you want to compare education backgrounds?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find it more than somewhat hilarious that so many people who do not believe in Darwinist THEORY as it related to cosmology and zooology are 100% ON BOARD with the theory of SOCIAL DARWINSIM as it relates to anthropolgy and sociology.


To these hateful morons, survival of the fittest is a perfectly plausible theory as it relates to mankind's interactions with himself but entirely NON SCIENTIFIC when it comes to the LAW OF THE JUNGLE.

Seriously, how confused does on have to be to hold those two divergent POVs?

And, speaking of "these hateful morons,"....

"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real."
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"



And, because of my hopes for you, consider the following:

“[The] relationship [between communism and Nazism] may never be fully understood. But the Russian Red Terror, in its emphasis on the elimination of entire classes of peoples, in its description of opponents as "vermin" to be exterminated, does seem like a precursor of the German concentration camps. Moreover, Nazism profited greatly not only from Lenin's and Stalin's Gulag system--Rudolf Hoess, commandant of Auschwitz, solicited reports about the operations of Soviet camps--but also from Bolshevism itself, which served as both a whipping boy and, at times, a political idea that could be collaborated with. The two ideologies validated each other.

After World War II, the prestige of the Soviet Union was at its height. The country had fought on the side of the democracies, U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow. In Europe, communists made a comeback in France, Italy and Germany with the flowering of the myth that communists were merely heroic anti-fascist freedom fighters. Thus the gruesome Soviet record was suppressed.

After the halo wore off the Soviet Union, China emerged as a new beacon for credulous Westerners. .Mr. Margolin writes that "one myth was common in the West: the idea that China was far from being a model democracy, but that at least Mao had managed to give a bowl of rice to every Chinese person." In fact, nothing was further than the truth. Mao, like Stalin deliberately engineered a famine that killed untold millions.”
WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999


Now....this is the philosophy you endorse?
Again....what was that about 'hateful morons'?

 

[Truthmatters]

your a terrible christian