orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Indeed.
Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
- Thread starter Mr.Right
- Start date
Indeed.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Here is another blog on science and religion I wrote at the same time I wrote the last one:
Any debate on this issue must present an historical perspective of intelligent design and of the biological theory of evolution.
Historically, Intelligent Design has been called creationism, which is a religious belief that the Judeo-Christian God created everything and all life on our world. Creationists in the 1980s attempted to get creationism taught in the public schools in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that such instruction was a violation of the 1st amendment separation clause since creationism amounted to religious instruction.
After the Supreme Court ruling, certain proponents of creationism attempted to rewrite the creationist 'rule book' by revising the 17th-18th century idea to say that that there was some non-specific designer that created everything and all life. The purpose of the revision was to take the word "God" out of their "theory", and thereby make it about something other than religion so that it could then be introduced into the Dover, Pennsylvania school system. The Dover vs Kitzmiller Federal ruling made it clear that Intelligent design was a subterfuge for creationism, and as such, the attempt to teach it in public schools was a clear violation of the earlier Supreme Court ruling barring the teaching of creationism in public schools.
So first and foremost, Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory. At best, it is a religious tautology that cannot be falsified. The notion that "God did it", or some "undefined designer", if you will, did it, as appealing as it is, doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't follow the scientific method, doesn't tell us how or even why God/the undefined designer did it, doesn't give us cures for disease, doesn't even give us methods in which to find cures for disease. It doesn't explain the well documented age of the Earth, nor does it explain the diversity and interelatedness of all life (including human life). If "God/unspecified designer did it", and we used that criterion in the laboratory or in the field, then we would get nowhere in our efforts to describe and explain the natural phenomenon we see and experience every day. After all, when we discover something unforeseen or not previous known, all we would need do to explain it is to simply say "God/the designer" did it. Unfortunately for the 'theory', that simply gets us nowhere.
It also begs the question if "God did it", if he created everything, who created God? It defies everything we know and understand about causation. What it does do is introduce a bias that affects the outcome of our experiments/observations. Why? Because by 'design', it makes a foregone conclusion, and then looks for specific data to back up that conclusion. In other words, its 'method' is exactly backwards from the scientific method.
The scientific method lets reality speak for itself. It asks "what are the verifiable facts", compiles those facts, then devises a testable hypothesis to try to explain the facts. If by testing, observation, and analysis the hypothesis doesn't adequately explain the facts, it devises another testable hypothesis, and so on and so forth until it finds one that best explains the facts. Then other scientists test the hypothesis and try to find fault with it, until it is determined to satisfactorily explain whatever facts it attempts to explain. Only then, does it rise to the level of a scientific theory. When new facts come to light, the theory is revised to better explain the new facts.
Intelligent design doesn't do this. It starts with a conclusion, and then tries to shoehorn the facts (and sometimes, simply makes up facts) to fit the foregone conclusion. If the facts don't fit, they are discarded. In this way, Intelligent Design itself, BY DESIGN, can never be discarded in favor of one that fits the facts, because inconvenient facts are simply discarded.
Moreover, the concept of intelligent design/creationism is not a new one. In western countries for many centuries it was a leading explanation not only for life but for the entire universe. This is not surprising since Judeo-Christianity was and is the overriding religious belief in the west. Nearly every scholar from Aristotle to Buffon held some form of belief that an intelligence of some kind was behind the apparent designs we see in nature, and they spend lifetimes and fortunes trying to prove it. and is
The revolution in science during the enlightenment advanced new ideas and concepts that over time eroded the notion of intelligent design/creationism. From physics to the emerging sciences of chemistry, geology, physiology, and biology, scientists used the scientific method to discover new falsifiable explanations for phenomenon in the natural world. Descarte concluded in 1638 that with the exception of the human rational soul, all natural objects were caused by inert particles of matter in motion. In essence, according to this rationale, there was no difference between a watch and a dog. Not all mechanical philosophers held this view; Robert Boyle, for instance, distinguished between a watch as the work of man, and a dog as the work of God. However, he did retain the same mechanical view of nature as Descarte.
The mechanical philosphy was seductive but it could explain vital phenomenon such as growth, nutrition, and reproduction only by resorting to outlandish hypotheses which could not be substantiated by experimentation. The mechanical philosphy lost favor in the first half of the 18th century when physiologists realized that a mechanical analysis of living things might be impossible. In 1753 Bernard Fontenelle concluded that although mathematics applied to living things, he was unable to explain their functioning because they were so complex. It was decided that the better approach was to study "vital phenomenon", the mechanisms of life and thereby reduce them to rule without resorting to original causes. As a result, experimental physiology became phenomenalistic.
Natural history experienced a rebirth in the late 17th century. One of the reasons for the rebirth was religious. Mechanical philosphy recognised a creator God but denied that he had any role in the everyday operations of the universe. Therefore God could be discovered in nature not from any acts he might perfom but from the very complexity and harmony of nature. Natural history described this complexity in great detail.
The second reason for the rise in natural history was a desire to get rid of the animistic "prinicples" and "souls" that had characterized Rennaissance science. Natural history described the three kingdoms of nature - animal, vegetable, and mineral. Since it was primarily concerned with physical descriptions, it was not interested in causes. There was no room for spirits other then the human rational soul. Because modern biologists attempt to explain life in physical/chemical terms, one might suppose that mechanical philosophy was the precursor of modern biology. In fact, biology as a separate scientific discipline came only after a rejection the mechanical philosophy in about the mid-18th century. This rebellion separated the animate from the innanimate for the first time because they had discovered principles that applied to life but not to inanimate matter (that is, until organic chemistry began to uncover how the mechanical philosophy extended into animate, organic life).
The third reason was the emphasis on emperical science. British philosophers and scientists began to conclude that the world is discoverable from careful observation and study of natural phenomenon and not by deductive reasoning.
Experiments in biology and global exploration during the enlightenment resulted in considerable advances in our knowledge of not only the diversity of life, but many of its basic functions. Regeneration was a significant discovery. Coral polys were discovered to be able to reproduce bia budding. Corals were sliced up, and each part could regenerate. This was a significant problem because if each part could regenerate the entire animal, then where was its 'soul'? It was well known that salamanders to could regenerate their tails, but the cut off tail always died. Of course, the explanation is that each part is composed of living cells which contain dna in the nucleus, but scientists then had no idea why polyps could do what they do. What these experiments did show was that whatever was regenerating life was distributed throughout the organism. It was an important first step to a principle for how lifeforms grow and reproduce.
The discovery of the New World, and the subsequent global expeditions led to many new discoveries in natural history, particularly with regard to geology, biology, and what today we refer to as paleontology. James Hutton and A. G. Werner were the giants of the new science of geology in the enlightenment. And they sat in different camps, the former being of the opinion that the Earth changed only slowly and uniformly by the processes that have been observed in historic times. In other words, his view was that the same processes we see at work on Earth today molded the Earth throughout its history. The latter was of the view that land forms were caused by events greater than any man has ever observed, what was called catastrophism.
Oddly, while Hutton admitted that volcanism played an important part on shaping the landscapes in many regions of the Earth, Werner was of the opinion that basalt, the principle studied volcanic rock of the day, was formed by chemical precipitation on the bottom of the ocean. Hutton won the day when basalt was studied in France and shown definitively to be of volcanic origin.
Charles Lyellexpanded on uniformitarianism to develop gradualism, the view that all features of the Earth's surface are produced by physical, chemical, and biological processes through long periods of geological time.
His system was based on two propositions: the causes of geologic change operating include all the causes that have acted from the earliest time; and these causes have always operated at the same average levels of energy. These two propositions add up to a "steady-state" theory of the Earth. Changes in climate have fluctuated around a mean, reflecting changes in the position of land and sea.
Lyell's position suggested that the world had always been (roughly) similar to its current state. In particular, Lyell believed that the species composition of the world remained unchanged, with at least some members of all classes of organisms existing throughout the history of the earth.
Today we recognize that many catastrophic events have occurred in Earth's history, and yet processes such as sedimentation and erosion play a vital role in shaping the landscape over the bulk of the Earth.
Natural scientists in the 18th and 19th century discovered many new fossils (particularly in the New World) of plants and animals that previous existed but most of which are now extinct. These findings presented several problems for scientists. First was how these fossils could be spread out all over the geologic column in many different strata of different ages if they all died in the great Noachan flood. Catastrophists were of the view that they were all deposited during the Noachian flood. Hutton, later confirmed by Lyell and many others up to this day showed definitively that the bulk of these fossils were not deposited in flood deposits at all, but were the remains of plants and animals, many of which died where they lived and slowly, over time, built up bone beds. The Falls of the Ohio River Devonian aged coral reef is one such sequence of bone beds that drew scientists from all over Europe and America. Today we know without question that there was no global flood, has never been one.
The discovery of a heretofore unknown and huge diversity of plants and animals discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries presented a timeline problem for scientists. How could all this diversity, past and present, have come about in the relatively short time period demanded by Biblical scholars such as Bishop Ussher?
Hutton's studies of sedimentation and erosion led him to conclude that the Earth was likely about 80,000 years old, much older than Bishop Ussher's proposed Biblical chronology of 6,000 years. Although this gave scientists more leaway (though it was ridiculed at first, particularly in religious circles), it became increasingly evident from study of the geologic column that more time was needed. Over time, older and older estimates were made based on field evidence and laboratory studies. In 1860, the Earth was estimated to be about 3 million years old, far older than Biblical accounts.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his "on The Origin Of Species", in which he presented compelling evidence that species evolve via natural selection.Darwin, the son of a preacher and husband of a devout Anglican, agonized over whether or not to publish at all, but presented with the prospect that another would publish before him, finally relented and published.
Finally, a process was proposed that not only required long periods of geologic time, but explained how through the advances in our knowledge of the age of the Earth, species could evolve. Evolution, Darwin showed, is not a random, undirected, process, but a process similar to artificial selection that has given us all of the domesticated varieties of plants and animals. But rather than resorting to some undefined designer, or the Judeo-Christian God, he proposed that selection occurred via natural processes working on heredity to instill selective advantage for species to survive environmental change.
Darwin was unaware of the work of a certain Austrian monk named Gregor mendell, who discovered the biological mechanism by which natural selection works. That mechanism is genetics. Mendell's work vindicated Darwin, though we know today that Darwin got some of it wrong. But that is the beauty of science, that it can be modified to account for new information.
In conclusion, today, genetics is the foundation of evolution, while evolution itself is the foundation of modern biology. Today we know that the Earth is 4.567 billion years old. We also know that life on this planet goes back at least 3.8 billion years, and likely a bit further. For any scientific theory to be successful, it must explain the most facts and have the ability to be revised when new information comes to light. What's more, it has to be able to make predictions. One such prediction made early on was that man was an ape related to modern apes, but descended from a common ancestor. Today, mountains of evidence, most importantly the genetic evidence, show this to be true.
The theory of evolution is the most successful and useful scientific theory ever devised. It has helped us explain how viruses and bacteria evolve new strategies for resistence to antbiotics, and provides a framework with which to devise better medicines to combat disease. In contrast, Intelligent design, is, by design, not scientific, and therefore not a scientific theory. As such, it can never provide a useful explanation for life, much less provide a framework that better explains life than the theory of evolution.
Finally, the theory of evolution does not in itself conflict with traditional Judeo-Christianity. Many Christians and Jews (in particular, the Catholic Church) recognize the validity of evolution. Where the conflict occurs is with a literalistist interpretation of the Book of Genesis espoused by a minority of Evangelicals and Muslims. It must be kept in mind that the theory of evolution is not about ultimate origins, but about how species change. Evolution explains this change. Intelligent Design does not.
- OROGENICMAN
__________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Edwards v. Aguillard - Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Dover vs Kitzmiller - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Evolution Of The Earth - 2003, Jr. Robert Dott, Donald Prothero
Science And The Enlightenment - 1985, Thomas L. Hankins
On The Origin Of Species - 1859, Charles Darwin
Any debate on this issue must present an historical perspective of intelligent design and of the biological theory of evolution.
Historically, Intelligent Design has been called creationism, which is a religious belief that the Judeo-Christian God created everything and all life on our world. Creationists in the 1980s attempted to get creationism taught in the public schools in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that such instruction was a violation of the 1st amendment separation clause since creationism amounted to religious instruction.
After the Supreme Court ruling, certain proponents of creationism attempted to rewrite the creationist 'rule book' by revising the 17th-18th century idea to say that that there was some non-specific designer that created everything and all life. The purpose of the revision was to take the word "God" out of their "theory", and thereby make it about something other than religion so that it could then be introduced into the Dover, Pennsylvania school system. The Dover vs Kitzmiller Federal ruling made it clear that Intelligent design was a subterfuge for creationism, and as such, the attempt to teach it in public schools was a clear violation of the earlier Supreme Court ruling barring the teaching of creationism in public schools.
So first and foremost, Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory. At best, it is a religious tautology that cannot be falsified. The notion that "God did it", or some "undefined designer", if you will, did it, as appealing as it is, doesn't actually explain anything. It doesn't follow the scientific method, doesn't tell us how or even why God/the undefined designer did it, doesn't give us cures for disease, doesn't even give us methods in which to find cures for disease. It doesn't explain the well documented age of the Earth, nor does it explain the diversity and interelatedness of all life (including human life). If "God/unspecified designer did it", and we used that criterion in the laboratory or in the field, then we would get nowhere in our efforts to describe and explain the natural phenomenon we see and experience every day. After all, when we discover something unforeseen or not previous known, all we would need do to explain it is to simply say "God/the designer" did it. Unfortunately for the 'theory', that simply gets us nowhere.
It also begs the question if "God did it", if he created everything, who created God? It defies everything we know and understand about causation. What it does do is introduce a bias that affects the outcome of our experiments/observations. Why? Because by 'design', it makes a foregone conclusion, and then looks for specific data to back up that conclusion. In other words, its 'method' is exactly backwards from the scientific method.
The scientific method lets reality speak for itself. It asks "what are the verifiable facts", compiles those facts, then devises a testable hypothesis to try to explain the facts. If by testing, observation, and analysis the hypothesis doesn't adequately explain the facts, it devises another testable hypothesis, and so on and so forth until it finds one that best explains the facts. Then other scientists test the hypothesis and try to find fault with it, until it is determined to satisfactorily explain whatever facts it attempts to explain. Only then, does it rise to the level of a scientific theory. When new facts come to light, the theory is revised to better explain the new facts.
Intelligent design doesn't do this. It starts with a conclusion, and then tries to shoehorn the facts (and sometimes, simply makes up facts) to fit the foregone conclusion. If the facts don't fit, they are discarded. In this way, Intelligent Design itself, BY DESIGN, can never be discarded in favor of one that fits the facts, because inconvenient facts are simply discarded.
Moreover, the concept of intelligent design/creationism is not a new one. In western countries for many centuries it was a leading explanation not only for life but for the entire universe. This is not surprising since Judeo-Christianity was and is the overriding religious belief in the west. Nearly every scholar from Aristotle to Buffon held some form of belief that an intelligence of some kind was behind the apparent designs we see in nature, and they spend lifetimes and fortunes trying to prove it. and is
The revolution in science during the enlightenment advanced new ideas and concepts that over time eroded the notion of intelligent design/creationism. From physics to the emerging sciences of chemistry, geology, physiology, and biology, scientists used the scientific method to discover new falsifiable explanations for phenomenon in the natural world. Descarte concluded in 1638 that with the exception of the human rational soul, all natural objects were caused by inert particles of matter in motion. In essence, according to this rationale, there was no difference between a watch and a dog. Not all mechanical philosophers held this view; Robert Boyle, for instance, distinguished between a watch as the work of man, and a dog as the work of God. However, he did retain the same mechanical view of nature as Descarte.
The mechanical philosphy was seductive but it could explain vital phenomenon such as growth, nutrition, and reproduction only by resorting to outlandish hypotheses which could not be substantiated by experimentation. The mechanical philosphy lost favor in the first half of the 18th century when physiologists realized that a mechanical analysis of living things might be impossible. In 1753 Bernard Fontenelle concluded that although mathematics applied to living things, he was unable to explain their functioning because they were so complex. It was decided that the better approach was to study "vital phenomenon", the mechanisms of life and thereby reduce them to rule without resorting to original causes. As a result, experimental physiology became phenomenalistic.
Natural history experienced a rebirth in the late 17th century. One of the reasons for the rebirth was religious. Mechanical philosphy recognised a creator God but denied that he had any role in the everyday operations of the universe. Therefore God could be discovered in nature not from any acts he might perfom but from the very complexity and harmony of nature. Natural history described this complexity in great detail.
The second reason for the rise in natural history was a desire to get rid of the animistic "prinicples" and "souls" that had characterized Rennaissance science. Natural history described the three kingdoms of nature - animal, vegetable, and mineral. Since it was primarily concerned with physical descriptions, it was not interested in causes. There was no room for spirits other then the human rational soul. Because modern biologists attempt to explain life in physical/chemical terms, one might suppose that mechanical philosophy was the precursor of modern biology. In fact, biology as a separate scientific discipline came only after a rejection the mechanical philosophy in about the mid-18th century. This rebellion separated the animate from the innanimate for the first time because they had discovered principles that applied to life but not to inanimate matter (that is, until organic chemistry began to uncover how the mechanical philosophy extended into animate, organic life).
The third reason was the emphasis on emperical science. British philosophers and scientists began to conclude that the world is discoverable from careful observation and study of natural phenomenon and not by deductive reasoning.
Experiments in biology and global exploration during the enlightenment resulted in considerable advances in our knowledge of not only the diversity of life, but many of its basic functions. Regeneration was a significant discovery. Coral polys were discovered to be able to reproduce bia budding. Corals were sliced up, and each part could regenerate. This was a significant problem because if each part could regenerate the entire animal, then where was its 'soul'? It was well known that salamanders to could regenerate their tails, but the cut off tail always died. Of course, the explanation is that each part is composed of living cells which contain dna in the nucleus, but scientists then had no idea why polyps could do what they do. What these experiments did show was that whatever was regenerating life was distributed throughout the organism. It was an important first step to a principle for how lifeforms grow and reproduce.
The discovery of the New World, and the subsequent global expeditions led to many new discoveries in natural history, particularly with regard to geology, biology, and what today we refer to as paleontology. James Hutton and A. G. Werner were the giants of the new science of geology in the enlightenment. And they sat in different camps, the former being of the opinion that the Earth changed only slowly and uniformly by the processes that have been observed in historic times. In other words, his view was that the same processes we see at work on Earth today molded the Earth throughout its history. The latter was of the view that land forms were caused by events greater than any man has ever observed, what was called catastrophism.
Oddly, while Hutton admitted that volcanism played an important part on shaping the landscapes in many regions of the Earth, Werner was of the opinion that basalt, the principle studied volcanic rock of the day, was formed by chemical precipitation on the bottom of the ocean. Hutton won the day when basalt was studied in France and shown definitively to be of volcanic origin.
Charles Lyellexpanded on uniformitarianism to develop gradualism, the view that all features of the Earth's surface are produced by physical, chemical, and biological processes through long periods of geological time.
His system was based on two propositions: the causes of geologic change operating include all the causes that have acted from the earliest time; and these causes have always operated at the same average levels of energy. These two propositions add up to a "steady-state" theory of the Earth. Changes in climate have fluctuated around a mean, reflecting changes in the position of land and sea.
Lyell's position suggested that the world had always been (roughly) similar to its current state. In particular, Lyell believed that the species composition of the world remained unchanged, with at least some members of all classes of organisms existing throughout the history of the earth.
Today we recognize that many catastrophic events have occurred in Earth's history, and yet processes such as sedimentation and erosion play a vital role in shaping the landscape over the bulk of the Earth.
Natural scientists in the 18th and 19th century discovered many new fossils (particularly in the New World) of plants and animals that previous existed but most of which are now extinct. These findings presented several problems for scientists. First was how these fossils could be spread out all over the geologic column in many different strata of different ages if they all died in the great Noachan flood. Catastrophists were of the view that they were all deposited during the Noachian flood. Hutton, later confirmed by Lyell and many others up to this day showed definitively that the bulk of these fossils were not deposited in flood deposits at all, but were the remains of plants and animals, many of which died where they lived and slowly, over time, built up bone beds. The Falls of the Ohio River Devonian aged coral reef is one such sequence of bone beds that drew scientists from all over Europe and America. Today we know without question that there was no global flood, has never been one.
The discovery of a heretofore unknown and huge diversity of plants and animals discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries presented a timeline problem for scientists. How could all this diversity, past and present, have come about in the relatively short time period demanded by Biblical scholars such as Bishop Ussher?
Hutton's studies of sedimentation and erosion led him to conclude that the Earth was likely about 80,000 years old, much older than Bishop Ussher's proposed Biblical chronology of 6,000 years. Although this gave scientists more leaway (though it was ridiculed at first, particularly in religious circles), it became increasingly evident from study of the geologic column that more time was needed. Over time, older and older estimates were made based on field evidence and laboratory studies. In 1860, the Earth was estimated to be about 3 million years old, far older than Biblical accounts.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his "on The Origin Of Species", in which he presented compelling evidence that species evolve via natural selection.Darwin, the son of a preacher and husband of a devout Anglican, agonized over whether or not to publish at all, but presented with the prospect that another would publish before him, finally relented and published.
Finally, a process was proposed that not only required long periods of geologic time, but explained how through the advances in our knowledge of the age of the Earth, species could evolve. Evolution, Darwin showed, is not a random, undirected, process, but a process similar to artificial selection that has given us all of the domesticated varieties of plants and animals. But rather than resorting to some undefined designer, or the Judeo-Christian God, he proposed that selection occurred via natural processes working on heredity to instill selective advantage for species to survive environmental change.
Darwin was unaware of the work of a certain Austrian monk named Gregor mendell, who discovered the biological mechanism by which natural selection works. That mechanism is genetics. Mendell's work vindicated Darwin, though we know today that Darwin got some of it wrong. But that is the beauty of science, that it can be modified to account for new information.
In conclusion, today, genetics is the foundation of evolution, while evolution itself is the foundation of modern biology. Today we know that the Earth is 4.567 billion years old. We also know that life on this planet goes back at least 3.8 billion years, and likely a bit further. For any scientific theory to be successful, it must explain the most facts and have the ability to be revised when new information comes to light. What's more, it has to be able to make predictions. One such prediction made early on was that man was an ape related to modern apes, but descended from a common ancestor. Today, mountains of evidence, most importantly the genetic evidence, show this to be true.
The theory of evolution is the most successful and useful scientific theory ever devised. It has helped us explain how viruses and bacteria evolve new strategies for resistence to antbiotics, and provides a framework with which to devise better medicines to combat disease. In contrast, Intelligent design, is, by design, not scientific, and therefore not a scientific theory. As such, it can never provide a useful explanation for life, much less provide a framework that better explains life than the theory of evolution.
Finally, the theory of evolution does not in itself conflict with traditional Judeo-Christianity. Many Christians and Jews (in particular, the Catholic Church) recognize the validity of evolution. Where the conflict occurs is with a literalistist interpretation of the Book of Genesis espoused by a minority of Evangelicals and Muslims. It must be kept in mind that the theory of evolution is not about ultimate origins, but about how species change. Evolution explains this change. Intelligent Design does not.
- OROGENICMAN
__________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Edwards v. Aguillard - Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Dover vs Kitzmiller - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
The Evolution Of The Earth - 2003, Jr. Robert Dott, Donald Prothero
Science And The Enlightenment - 1985, Thomas L. Hankins
On The Origin Of Species - 1859, Charles Darwin
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent. You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo. And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do. A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science. You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case. And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support. That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person. Because all you are doing is trolling. I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior. And I for one am sick and tired of it.
You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons. I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds. Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, in detail, with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based. Do that, and we can continue our discussion. Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you. It is up to you.
Well you are batshit crazy, that can't be denied.
You mean about 'magically morphing'?
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Creationism is not a scientific alternative because creationism is not scientific. It is purely a religious belief in support of a literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis. Nothing more.
Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution. Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre. They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."
WTF??? If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
WTF is right! The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's. It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to. It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "inter stellar planetary collision or meteors. Nor does it claim that we are star stuff. It says nothing whatsoever about any of that. It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species. If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand. The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from astronomical investigations of complex organic molecules in space. They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds. It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star. That is the only place they can be created. So when someone tells you that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about. But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?
In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You deny the reality of evolution, bubba. So what is your explanation? What merits your denial?
I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists. Are you saying he/she is wrong? I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of those "transitional species" and "common ancestors" you keep avoiding discussing.
Toro
Diamond Member
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
That person, by admission, is not a scientist. I am. I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
And unless you scroll way back in this very thread where I went into detail about those "issues", you are going to continue waiting. I'm not going to repeat myself to everyone too lazy to read the thread.
Explanation, please...
orogenicman
Darwin was a pastafarian
- Jul 24, 2013
- 8,546
- 834
- 175
To quote you, "But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution. Yu remember that theory, don't you? The subject of this thread, right?"
I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject. Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory. I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Please comment on new “ Project Hell Marry trailer ?? Getting great reviews- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
-
Jasmine Crockett’s Security Guard Fatally Shot By Dallas SWAT In Standoff – What We Know- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
