I'm totally tired of these bullshit arguments.
Really.
And i'm tired of the quote mining. Or video mining. Or whatever other form of mining.
I wish people would stop trying to second guess God, or put God in a box.
Evolution vs. Evidence 2 Ph.D.'s discuss science approach --huge shock for believers
- Thread starter Robert W
- Start date
Really.
And i'm tired of the quote mining. Or video mining. Or whatever other form of mining.
I wish people would stop trying to second guess God, or put God in a box.
ReinyDays
Gold Member
My position is evolution makes for horrific social policy ... we don't kill off our disabled ... and we let farmers decide their own flocks and herds which generally follows what evolution predicts, one way or another ... and we've been doing this since the Agricultural Revolution ca. 10,000 years ago ...
Darwin didn't discover evolution, he discovered a way to make money off evolution ... that book he published is still in print ... sheesh ... not many books get this kind of advertising after 165 years ... almost Biblical in popularity ...
Today we explain evolution with chemistry ... Darwin, Mendel, Linnaeus didn't have access to the concept of a DNA molecule ... no knowledge of the actual workings of ToE ... can't really expect these great minds to get everything right ...
Christ would have us protect and defend the weakest in our societies ... the opposite of evolution ... but who needs a King of kings when we have President Biden/Trump answerable to Congress ... as bad as that sounds it's still better than dog eat dog ...
Evolution has nothing to do with social policy.
People who conflate the two, don't understand evolution.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
Sorry, I need more from an OP like key points and conclusions or at least where to skip in to the salient points before asking me to sit through an 80 minute long lecture without even telling me what I'm watching it for.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
Alfred Russell Wallace actually discovered and proved it. All Darwin had was a theory. Wallace sent his proofs to Darwin who then took credit for them, publishing his book. Originally, Wallace's name was included, but over time, historians erased his name.
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
Exactly. We practice evolution since decades of thousands of years. Nature told us how to do it.
Do you know Humboldt? A great scientist and an unbelievable tolerant and cosmopolitian man. A man who brought us all with his research and teaching nearer to the beauty of the creation and to the will to love nature on its own because it is nature. Not long ago I had to read an article what an unbelievable idiot Humboldt had been and what a great genius Darwin had been. Reason: Darwin told him what he found out and Humboldt only smiled. And if I see it the right way then Humboldt smiled compassionate when he took a look at him. Darwin must have been a rather bitter man. I think he just didn't want to offend him in his fanaticism.
Mendel made an extremely important job. As far as I know he was the first who tried to find a systematic explanation for "genetics" - although he had not been able to know what are genes. But he was able to quantify his results. Main object of his research: totally harmless bean seeds.
Yes. Very astonishing, isn't it? It is said Darwin "stole" a lot of his knowledge - not a crime - but looks like he was very intrigant. His fanaticism seem to have more followers today. But real scientific research is a very hard job - done by many people. And we need them all if they are real scientists. But many evolutionary explanations are more tautological fantasy than anything else. Sounds often like: "And then came king evolution and made everything good all over the universe by self-organisation of matter". I never saw matter self-organizing itselve - except this matter is alive. The very very very very and very very and more very matter is just simple matter - dust - and not self-organized life. Even the mass of all living matter on Earth together is nearly nothing compared with the matter of the planet - after billions of years of evolution.
No - not really. The problem is not the natural law evolution. The problem is what social Darwinists and abstrahots make out of it. Take the expression "empathy" for example. It became modern to think empathy - as a kind of bio-psychological construct - is positive per se. But I say: Empathy helps a torturer a lot because he knows what hurts. That's all. We have to learn compassion. And it is a free decision to teach our children compassion and generous care for the truly weak. It is also a free decision to make our children to cruelest child soldiers. The same children - with the same ability of empathy. But in the second case we are cheating our children of a godly and humane way of life.
Today in the morning I had an idea how future generations will call the time in which we live now. Maybe they will call our time: "The age of the crazed."
Last edited:
ReinyDays
Gold Member
It's important to note HISTORIANS erased his name ... Wallace himself encouraged Darwin to publish Origin ... another thing forgotten is Darwin's contribution to geology upon his return on the HMS Beagle in the 1830's, decades before Origin ... he had helped to establish "old Earth" theory ...
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was self-published, and not regarded as part of the scientific literature ... I believe Wallace's natural selection is the only part still retained in today's version of ToE, it's only the struggle to reproduce, not necessarily to survive ... now there's a fleeting monolith if there ever was one ...
ReinyDays
Gold Member
It's said that's what separates humans from animals ... only we can discern the thoughts in another ... no other animal has demonstrated that ability ... whereas in humans that transition occurs roughly 3- to 5-year-olds ...
It's interesting that the Ancients noticed this as well ... only Man partook of the fruit of good and evil knowledge ... only Man knows how to sin ... the animals don't know what torture is, let alone inflict it ...
Likewise ... in order to settle in one place long enough to brew beer, and the massive gains in reproduction this provides, evolution selected for those who could tolerate other humans ... ewwwww ... and "don't hurt others' feelings" became the norm ... if you wanted to be where the girls were drunk ... [wink wink nudge nudge] ...
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
According to David Attenborough, historians had a real problem with giving credit to an uncouth rogue like Wallace who had no university pedigree, while Darwin was essentially a rich kid born into it with a silver spoon in his mouth and better fit the mold of what a university-trained archeological expert should look like, so over time, quietly "phased out" all mention of Wallace in the book.
About ten years ago, much through the efforts and persistence of Attenborough, he finally got Wallace some of the recognition he deserved and had a statue erected commemorating Wallace's tireless research, contributions and feat.
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
I would say we see in dogs human beings and dogs see in us dogs. I thought about indeed it could be our social behavior is less comparable with the behavior of chimpanzees (nearer in biology) instead of the behavior of dogs - our first and very best 'alien' friends since decades of thousands of years.
That's the positive side if you are a real beast: For sure you will come to heaven because an animal is not really able to be evil.
It's difficult to speak in case of human beings about evolution. The nearest what fits to us is perhaps expressed from Arnold Gehlen who said we became "the specialist in being unspecialized". We are so unspezialized that we have really everything to learn. He said we are "weltoffen". You will find under this word the translation "to be liberal" or "to be cosmopolitan" - but he spoke verbally "we are open for the world". The world all around us comes into us and we take what we need. I said in this context "our brain is a reality simulator" in analogy to Immanuel Kants question "Can the thing itself be recognizable?”. All answers in this context never had been satisfying for me. Perhaps this is one of the questions where we are never able to find out whether this is true or not true - although very most people who like to be philosophers prefer to think it's evident that we are not able to recognize a thing itself. But where ends a simulation and where starts reality? In quantum physics for example something 'becomes real' (if we are able to say so at all) because it is watched.
Das Auge, mit dem mich Gott sieht,
ist das Auge, mit dem ich ihn sehe;
mein Auge und sein Auge ist eins.
Meister Eckhart
The eye with which God sees me
is the eye with which I see him;
my eye and his eye are one.
Last edited:
ReinyDays
Gold Member
We specialize by having a horrible taste ... nothing hunts us ... we smell like poison to carnivores ...
Conventional Wisdom has us living in the trees, way back when apes were more monkey-like ... and we lived in the trees to avoid lions and hyenas etc etc etc plus the climate allowed for forests all across Africa ... as climate cooled, we climbed down out of the trees and made of living out on the new savanna ... where all the delicious human genes were quickly wiped out ... leaving only bad-tasting humans ...
No way we could out-run lions and hyenas ... they avoided us ... we stink worse than skunks as our main form of defense ... the filth got so bad we lost most of our fur ... what a sad excuse even for semi-evolved rodents ...
We reject evolution because the theory says bad things about us ... and human's collective tender ego can't stand such a beating ... the truth is flight is the highest form of evolution ... birds will shit in your open mouth and laugh ...
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
What you reject or not reject makes nothing true or untrue. And you underestimate the homo erectus and other more animalic of our ancestors. They had been about 2 yards tall and had been extremely dangerous hunters. They had been "Hetzjäger" - this word seems not to exist in your language. They had been running hunters following their prey until it breaks down. Like wolves - but a little slower than wolves what they compensated with a higher endurance. I see no need for them to become "intelligent", "spiritual", "intellectual" - no need to commmunicate with language.
But most people who argue in case of evolution argue "political" as you do. It's a pitty that you are always only fighting who is right and who's wrong. What I miss in your never ending absurde discussions "creation vs evolution" is it to love it to hunt the real truth with the endurance of a homo erectus and to share the results. It is perverse to hunt each other down.
Last edited:
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
there is no actual physical evidence that mammal ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
Eh? You are a mammal and a kangaroo is a mammal. How do you explain this?
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
again no evidence that a single mammal ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species
RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
and a kangaroo is marsupial all native species to Australia are
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
Okay - you have the typical US-American attitude to be allknowing. And if something not works with your lack of knowledge then you ignore this intentionally for to keep your omniscience formal. Correct view? You will say "no", isn't it? But how do I know what you will say?
Why do you have a problem to answer my question? On a very simple reason: Had been kangaroos in paradise or not? If they not had been in paradise - who created kangaroos in Australia? When? How? Why? And if they had been in paradise - how came they to Australia? And a lot of questions would follow. And slowly you would understand what others speak about when they use the word "evolution". This was the background of the very old and widespread discussion about "new world" and "old world". How came that god made two worlds and not only one world?
If you would study more and so also know more you could find out that many people who use the word "evolution" have not any real idea about evolution. That's for example why many of so called "evolutionists" speak about a bunch of cells and ignore totally that a fertilized egg cell of an elephant will grow to become an elephant and a fertilized egg cell of a human being will grow to become a human being. This means: Abortion hurts the human right to live - as long as no one has a very concrete proof that no human being is killed during an abortion. But this reality is ignored from so calld "evolutionists" in a similar way as so called "creationists" intentionally ignore reality.
So also if someone not believes in god and in his unwritten natural human rights which god gave (you call this rights "unalienable" we call this right "unverbrüchlich" (~"unbreakable")) but believes in logic and reason he also should be able to recognize what's wrong with abortions. But as long as you do not like to study what others say - and so really try to find out what's right and wrong - you are not in a better position than your opponents. On the other side: Reality and truth are not empty words. Not to forget: God is truth. And not only this truth we agree with.
Guys, guys, little guys you have to be funny, be funny!
Mustn't, mustn't, mustn't be so sad, be so sad
Because, because, because with sadness, sadness
you won't get far, you won't get far!
Like this, like this, like this the field is, the field is
So, so, so, so, yes so are the turnips, are the turnips!
So, so, just as the father is, just as the father is.
So, so, so, so are the boys.
So, so the way the mother is, the way the mother is
So, so that's the way girls are, girls are.
And, and, and even more beautiful today, more beautiful today
And, and twice as clever
What? What? What? Yes, what's the matter, what's the matter?
Just, just, just go on with the boys, go on with the boys?
Would you, would you, would you not like to dance today, dance today?
Now, now, now is the time.
Who, who, who today just like a stick, like a stick
Bland, bland, bland sitting around, sitting around
It's their own fault, it's their own fault.
We, we, we are wild today.
People, people, little people you must be funny, be funny!
Mustn't, mustn't, mustn't be so sad, be so sad
Because, because, because with sadness, sadness
you won't get far, you won't get far!
Last edited:
zaangalewa
Gold Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 24,915
- 2,660
- 140
Marsupials are mammals - with a special Australian way to grow up. An US-American influencer got this days a big problem because she showed a totally perverted behavior with a kangaroo baby in Australia. I do not say now what she made wrong. But very clear: No one should touch whatever baby from whatever creature without to know what really to do on what good reason and/or for sure not only just for fun. Also animals have unwritten god given natural rights.
Last edited:
ReinyDays
Gold Member
I was discussing Australopithecus, or earlier in the lineage ... several millions of years prior to any Homo species ... why do you think Homo erectus tasted any better than any other humanoid? ...
You ignore the argument and then call it "absurde" ... and apparently you're unclear on what was created during the Creation ...
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
You can now read about the origins of Covid on the White House website
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 2
-
-
Even Israel knows deporting people is the way to go
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 1
