My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism

[Seymour Flops]

I've been criticised on this forum for arguing with other posters about Darwinism while not taking a stance by stating some replacement for Darwinism. So here are my thoughts:

1) There is evidence of a designer in life on Earth. That evidence is what reknowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins calls "appearance of design."

2) I have no idea what this designer is like. I don't describe the designer as "God" because I don't describe the designer at all.

I sometimes refer to a hypothetical designer as "the flying spaghetti monster" for the sake of debating whether certain facts are proof of Darwism or could also fit a design model.

3) I have no quarrel with those who reject the idea of a designer. I'm fine with other opinions differing from my own.

So long as there is no bullying of non-believers in Darwinism, I don't see why any debate about origins of species need be contentious.

5) evolution and Darwinism are two different ideas. It appears that the designer used evolution as the method to realise the design.

I hope that is sufficient explanation. I'm willing to answer rational questions or challenges to those thoughts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tnuctip​

 

[Hollie]

I've been criticised on this forum for arguing with other posters about Darwinism while not taking a stance by stating some replacement for Darwinism. So here are my thoughts:

1) There is evidence of a designer in life on Earth. That evidence is what reknowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins calls "appearance of design."

2) I have no idea what this designer is like. I don't describe the designer as "God" because I don't describe the designer at all.

I sometimes refer to a hypothetical designer as "the flying spaghetti monster" for the sake of debating whether certain facts are proof of Darwism or could also fit a design model.

3) I have no quarrel with those who reject the idea of a designer. I'm fine with other opinions differing from my own.

So long as there is no bullying of non-believers in Darwinism, I don't see why any debate about origins of species need be contentious.

5) evolution and Darwinism are two different ideas. It appears that the designer used evolution as the method to realise the design.

I hope that is sufficient explanation. I'm willing to answer rational questions or challenges to those thoughts.

There is no evidence of supernatural design by one or more supernatural designers.

 

[Calypso Jones]

Aren't you replacing the words of the Original Designer? He didn't say he did it by evolution. He says he did it in 6 days.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I've been criticised on this forum for arguing with other posters about Darwinism while not taking a stance by stating some replacement for Darwinism. So here are my thoughts:

1) There is evidence of a designer in life on Earth. That evidence is what reknowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins calls "appearance of design."

2) I have no idea what this designer is like. I don't describe the designer as "God" because I don't describe the designer at all.

I sometimes refer to a hypothetical designer as "the flying spaghetti monster" for the sake of debating whether certain facts are proof of Darwism or could also fit a design model.

3) I have no quarrel with those who reject the idea of a designer. I'm fine with other opinions differing from my own.

So long as there is no bullying of non-believers in Darwinism, I don't see why any debate about origins of species need be contentious.

5) evolution and Darwinism are two different ideas. It appears that the designer used evolution as the method to realise the design.

I hope that is sufficient explanation. I'm willing to answer rational questions or challenges to those thoughts.

A Controlled Discussion Is an Empty Box

What the self-serving partisan fanatics have excluded from the debate is Intelligent Self-Design. Using their intelligence, early life-forms would choose ("interselect, intellect") what to add to their DNA and what to keep out. Call it free will.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Aren't you replacing the words of the Original Designer? He didn't say he did it by evolution. He says he did it in 6 days.

I don't believe any designer said that.

But if you believe that, I'm fine with it.

 

[Calypso Jones]

It's in his Word...called the Bible.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's in his Word...called the Bible.

I respect your beliefs, CJ, but I cannot agree with them.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I don't believe any designer said that.

But if you believe that, I'm fine with it.

okay. I don't have a problem with you believing what you want to believe either and i'm not insulted.

I have an issue with the claim that evolution and darwinism are not the same. Do you know when that distinction or claim came into being? In my opinion, Seymour, it is pure bunkum. They are the same. There is no evolution in the manner of which evolutionists try to define it. there is adaptation...which is not evolution. There is no evidence that one 'thing' can evolve into something entirely different. IMO, evolutionists are always trying to change the definition. The God of Creation does not do that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

okay. I don't have a problem with you believing what you want to believe either and i'm not insulted.

I have an issue with the claim that evolution and darwinism are not the same. Do you know when that distinction or claim came into being? In my opinion, Seymour, it is pure bunkum. They are the same.

Evolution is the idea that different species evolved from each other, giving Earth the abundance of species that it currently has. Darwinism is a specific theory on what drove that speciation, why life evolved into different species instead of the first life simply reproducing as the same species.

Prior to Darwin, the idea was that acquired traits were passed on to the next generation. The short-necked, giraffe-like animal stretched its neck to get the leaves and it's offspring had slightly longer necks, and so on. That was Larmarckism, the straw evolutionists clung to before Darwin held out his straw.

There is no evolution in the manner of which evolutionists try to define it. there is adaptation...which is not evolution. There is no evidence that one 'thing' can evolve into something entirely different. IMO, evolutionists are always trying to change the definition. The God of Creation does not do that.

I agree that there is no evidence that one species ever evolved from another. Even the so-called "adaptation," is an illusion, or at least not supported by evidence.

If there are a population of tens of thousands of mammals, and the temperature of their environment suddenly drops by twenty degrees, the individuals of that species who are more resistant to cold will survive and reproduce with more efficiency than their less resistant cousins. But that is not an adaptation, that is just a filtering out of the non-cold resistant. It would reverse if the average temperature later rose by thirty degrees. The more heat resistant members of the species would survive and reproduce in greater numbers than the more cold-resistant.

But through all that, it was the same species. Nothing made any kind of decision to "adapt."

Darwinists can't seem to help but use the language of design when they describe how their model works, or to speak of species, individuals, or genes having a "desire" to survive, adapt, and reproduce. Richard Dawkins, the scourge of those who see intelligent design, does that often.

 

[Hollie]

For those who are offended by evilutionism, take a stand against it. The next time you're in need of medical care, refuse any medications prescribed by your evilutionist doctor.

Evolution in Medicine

A recent series of article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) discusses the role of evolutionary biology in modern medicine. The authors collectively make a forceful point -

sciencebasedmedicine.org

A recent series of article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) discusses the role of evolutionary biology in modern medicine. The authors collectively make a forceful point – medicine is an applied science. It is based upon a number of basic sciences, and one of those basic sciences is evolution

 

[Calypso Jones]

Hmm. Hollie. That explains the change for the worse in the medical field

 

[Hollie]

Hmm. Hollie. That explains the change for the worse in the medical field

I see what you mean. The development of antibiotics and other inhibitors over the last decades is a result of those evilutionist atheists.

Do the right thing. Don't take any medications. The gods will provide.

 

[Calypso Jones]

I know there were many scientists who were looking for ways to benefit mankind...i don't think that is the attitude of those in that field today. As an example...why don't you try reading the contraindications on many of the modern meds.

I don't know about you but i haven't seen any medications or treatments that the German Nazi doctors developed that helped mankind...have you? They were........experimenting on men,women, pregnant women, children and babies for the benefit of the third reich and their own careers.

SURELY you aren't comparing scientists who developed drugs for the benefit of mankind to scientists working for big pharma's profit line with vaccines that don't prevent disease.

The Genocidal Ramifications of the Criminal Covid Conspiracy

STORY AT-A-GLANCE House Oversight Committee Republicans recently released the contents of emails sent between Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the

noqreport.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• House Oversight Committee Republicans recently released the contents of emails sent between Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and his boss, then-National Institutes of Health director Dr. Francis Collins in 2020
• The emails show Fauci and Collins rapidly agreed to suppress the theory that SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. While questions of intentions remain, it seems this decision was made for political reasons
• Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust in London, who also helped promote the narrative that the lab leak theory was nothing more than a wild conspiracy theory, has publicly stressed that he feared then-president Trump might use evidence of a lab leak to start a war against China
• Grant applications from the EcoHealth Alliance to the NIAID reveal the U.S. was funding the very research that could have resulted in this novel virus. Some of that research was even conducted in the lab in Wuhan, China
• It appears the scientific establishment will cover for China, no matter what the cost, out of fear of being defunded and/or losing scientific credibility and standing. The willingness of U.S. authorities to cover up the origin of SARS-CoV-2 means that countries can now assault us with bioweapons indefinitely, with full impunity

 

[Calypso Jones]

Video: French Protesters Surround Pfizer HQ Chanting “Assassins”

Protesters have been energised by Macron admitting he wants to 'piss off' the unvaccinated

summit.news

 

[Calypso Jones]

Here's what i would like to see. I HOPE and Pray that there are scientist/researchers looking to develop medicines or treatments to negate the effects of the covid vaccine especially for those folk who were forced to take them to keep their jobs and FOR the CHildren whose parents were deceived into thinking these would protect their children.

 

[abu afak]

I've been criticised on this forum for arguing with other posters about Darwinism while not taking a stance by stating some replacement for Darwinism. So here are my thoughts:

1) There is evidence of a designer in life on Earth. That evidence is what reknowned Darwinist Richard Dawkins calls "appearance of design."

Lying as usual. Flops Fraud #327.
This is just classic Quote mining, a way of Lying.
Short quoting or quoting out of context.
3 words is NOT a "quote," it's a snippet that obviously had surroundings, and even suggests the real quote is something contrary like "Despite the appearance of design, there is none."
and in fact that is what we have!!
LOL

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}​

He even uses the word "overwhelming":​

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does Not see ahead, does Not plan consequences, has NO purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the ILLUSION of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}​

​

"Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed ... | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

You 100% FRAUD, I out in Every thread.
Just the usual quote mining.

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lying as usual. Flops Fraud #327.
This is just classic Quote mining, a way of Lying.
Short quoting or quoting out of context.
3 words is NOT a "quote," it's a snippet that obviously had surroundings, and even suggests the real quote is something contrary like "Despite the appearance of design, there is none."
and in fact that is what we have!!
LOL

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}​

He even uses the word "overwhelming":​

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does Not see ahead, does Not plan consequences, has NO purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the ILLUSION of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}​

​

"Despite the overwhelming appearance of design in nature, which is not disputed ... | Hacker News

news.ycombinator.com

You 100% FRAUD, I out in Every thread.
Just the usual quote mining.

`

Yes, of course, he used the phrase "appearance of design," and the went on to attempt to refute the factualness of that appearance. I've said several times that Dawkins is a key promoter of Darwin's theory.

But the fact you don't want to face is that Dawkins - a huge opponent of intelligent design - admits that there is an appearance of design in life on Earth.

Do you dispute that there is an appearance of design? Dawkins insists that there is, what would you say to him to refute him?

 

[Hollie]

Yes, of course, he used the phrase "appearance of design," and the went on to attempt to refute the factualness of that appearance. I've said several times that Dawkins is a key promoter of Darwin's theory.

But the fact you don't want to face is that Dawkins - a huge opponent of intelligent design - admits that there is an appearance of design in life on Earth.

Do you dispute that there is an appearance of design? Dawkins insists that there is, what would you say to him to refute him?

It's a standard tactic of ID'iot creationers to manipulate and edit the ''quotes'' they attribute to those they define as enemies of their religionism. If you had attempted to accurately portray Dawkins' comments, you would have understood that he establishes the “appearance of design” argument as the only good argument for God’s existence. He then strips that down using natural selection and concludes there is no God. While ID'iot creationers find it useful to parse one ''quote'' from an entire conversation, it must be pointed out that “appearance of design” is not a description of biology, paleontology, natural sciences or chemistry. The ''quote'' you ''quote mined'' is no better than describing the Earth as having the “appearance of flatness”. Just a superficial description based on a lack of data.

 

[Seymour Flops]

ies on

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does Not see ahead, does Not plan consequences, has NO purpose in view. Yet the living results of Natural Selection overwhelmingly impress us with the ILLUSION of design and planning.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}​

​

`

This is what I mean about the most strident Darwinists needing to use the language of design. See how he anthropomorphizes "natural selection," as if it has a mind and a purpose?

Why are advocates of natural selection theory so afraid of the word "random," when their entire theory relies on it?

Do you still refuse to acknowledge that the living results of whatever process created the abundance of species on Earth overwhelmingly appears to show design, purpose, and planning?

Your own quote above says it does.