My thoughts on evolution and Darwinism

[abu afak]

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.

As I HAVE many times said, after 1 Billion years of evolution, selection, extinction, what's left appears Perfect for it's Current environment, but in fact it was all that random sharpening due to million of errors/Mutations.
In fact we, and everything else on the planet is STILL evolving.
Nothing is perfect/final form.
Evolution is ongoing of course, and the living things will (continually) reflect that in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now as they do now. (changing or weeded out).
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

As I HAVE many times said, after 1 Billion years of evolution, selection, extinction, what's left appears Perfect for it's Current environment, but in fact it was all that random sharpening due to million of errors/Mutations.
In fact we, and everything else on the planet is STILL evolving.
Nothing is perfect/final form.
Evolution is ongoing of course, and the living things will (continually) reflect that in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now as they do now. (changing or weeded out).
`

I don't fault you for believing that. It seems somewhat plausible, as long as you acknowledge the flaws.

Just don't fault me for not believing it, if you are unable to provide proof or ever real evidence.

 

[abu afak]

I don't fault you for believing that. It seems somewhat plausible, as long as you acknowledge the flaws.

Just don't fault me for not believing it, if you are unable to provide proof or ever real evidence.

You "don't fault me" because that's all you can do.
You certainly can't debate/disagree with me you "No Co-inkie-Dinkie" creationist/ID FRAUD!
`

 

[Hollie]

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.

It's unfortunate that the hyper-religious are often the least informed regarding the sciences. They are quick to promote their ignorance as fact.

Natural selection is the opposite of random. What the hyper-rigious don’t understand is that the forces that act upon biological organisms are not random. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness

 

[Seymour Flops]

You "don't fault me" because that's all you can do.
You certainly can't debate/disagree with me you "No Co-inkie-Dinkie" creationist/ID FRAUD!
`

Sorry, for a moment I mistook you for a grownup.

Carry on with your tantrum . . .

 

[abu afak]

Sorry, for a moment I mistook you for a grownup.

Carry on with your tantrum . . .

You can't debate me and you know it.
I always out you as the LYING FRAUD you are.
You just whiffed again: twice above.
`

 

[ding]

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.

Darwin was wrong about a lot of things. The fossil record does not support his theory of slight successive changes leading to speciation.

 

[ding]

You can't debate me and you know it.
I always out you as the LYING FRAUD you are.
You just whiffed again: twice above.
`

You have the IQ of a six year old.

 

[ding]

As I HAVE many times said, after 1 Billion years of evolution, selection, extinction, what's left appears Perfect for it's Current environment, but in fact it was all that random sharpening due to million of errors/Mutations.
In fact we, and everything else on the planet is STILL evolving.
Nothing is perfect/final form.
Evolution is ongoing of course, and the living things will (continually) reflect that in 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now as they do now. (changing or weeded out).
`

So you agree that life has evolved from a less complex state to a more complex state. That doesn't sound random at all.

 

[ding]

Every stage of the evolution of space and time has led to an ever increasing complexification of matter. That's not an accident. That is according to the nature of matter itself. Life and intelligence evolved because the laws of nature predestined it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I don't believe any designer said that.

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

The Best Reason for Opposing Anti-Theists

It's healthier as a metaphor indicating significance. The miserable decadent alternative is that man is as insignificant as his relative timespan compared to the beginning of Earth's existence. So the Literalists imply this: Mankind: 4,444 years. All the rest: 6 days before that. Man will wilt away unless he thinks he was created in God's image.

Like most of the Postmodern ruling class's creations, Secular Humanism. It is not secular, because it preaches that Nature (Gaia) is supernatural. It is not humanist, because it preaches that man is an animal and the most vicious one on the planet.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The Best Reason for Opposing Anti-Theists

It's healthier as a metaphor indicating significance. The miserable decadent alternative is that man is as insignificant as his relative timespan compared to the beginning of Earth's existence. So the Literalists imply this: Mankind: 4,444 years. All the rest: 6 days before that. Man will wilt away unless he thinks he was created in God's image.

Like most of the Postmodern ruling class's creations, Secular Humanism. It is not secular, because it preaches that Nature (Gaia) is supernatural. It is not humanist, because it preaches that man is an animal and the most vicious one on the planet.

I have to say that the exact meaning of your first paragraph eludes me. I get its literal meaning, but I don't know who it criticizes and how.

The second paragraph is very sage, Sage.

I would admire secular humanism, if it truly denied the metaphysical and then truly respected humanity as special. If it did, the followers would would abhor abortion for example.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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

Juniorocracy

Social Darwinism causes that devolution into unreliability. Those whose parents can afford to fund a healthy lifestyle (which is far more important than tuition) dominate the study of medicine.

If the Survival of the Fittest had replaced the Survival of the Fatherest, we High IQs would have cured cancer 50 years ago. Instead, the illusion that our oncologists are the fittest leads to the doctrine that cancer must be almost impossible to cure if even they can't do it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Satan Designed Postmodern Grammar

Our degenerate grammar disproves Darwinism. The dysfunctional usage, "Dawkins' comments," rather than the Intelligently Designed English "Dawkins's comments," would not survive under the Survival of the Fittest. Instead, it has become pandemic.

When spoken, it implies that his name is Dawkin. As written, it would be a plural possessive meaning "the comments of the Dawkin brothers."

 

[Calypso Jones]

Socialdarwinism declined in ....um......what term should i use? Legitimacy after the WW due to the fact it is scientifically groundless and ....shhhhh......the nazi association. Apparently the left has dragged it out again. Everything old is new again.

 

[Calypso Jones]

When the darwinists/evolutionists could not prove evolution they hijacked adaptation. And it's THEORY of evolution. Let's not forget that...it's important.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Socialdarwinism declined in ....um......what term should i use? Legitimacy after the WW due to the fact it is scientifically groundless and ....shhhhh......the nazi association. Apparently the left has dragged it out again. Everything old is new again.

There Is No Other Class That Acts Like It Was Born to Rule

More proof that they should be called "Preppy Progressives." Whites who are born rich deplore and fear all other White people.

 

[Hollie]

Satan Designed Postmodern Grammar

Our degenerate grammar disproves Darwinism. The dysfunctional usage, "Dawkins' comments," rather than the Intelligently Designed English "Dawkins's comments," would not survive under the Survival of the Fittest. Instead, it has become pandemic.

When spoken, it implies that his name is Dawkin. As written, it would be a plural possessive meaning "the comments of the Dawkin brothers."

You are correct about the spelling of Dawkin relative to the possessive punctuation. A result of typing on a phone keyboard and spell check.

I'll note that the term wasn't spoken, it was written.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Satan Designed Postmodern Grammar

Our degenerate grammar disproves Darwinism. The dysfunctional usage, "Dawkins' comments," rather than the Intelligently Designed English "Dawkins's comments," would not survive under the Survival of the Fittest. Instead, it has become pandemic.

When spoken, it implies that his name is Dawkin. As written, it would be a plural possessive meaning "the comments of the Dawkin brothers."

How would you pronounced your proposed replacement for the grammatically correct "Dawkins'" and why do you think an extra letter is more efficient?

 

[Quasar44]

Seymour Flops

Evolution is 100 percent fact
It has been proven by genes to the fossil record etc