Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Creationists V Darwinists


PopGun

Recommended Posts

Guest anorthosite
That's exactly why Creationism is being fuelled - because people are too ignorant to admit we don't have all the answers.

Maybe you missed this line:

I'm saying evolution is an observed phenomenon of which much of the details of are not understood.

There's lots about evolution we don't understand, and I've said that all along. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest anorthosite
It is unnecessary to provide evidence against a theory which has not yet been fully proved. Don't you get it? You are the one with something to prove. I don't need to disprove anything. You need to convince me that the theory explains everything and is beyond doubt.

To answer your other question molecular microbiology/genetics.

Its an observation. Do I have to prove that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skint Academic
STOP WITH THIS SH*T ALREADY!!

Why are you pitting science against terrorism? You are muddying the argument. And you know what? I bet you three semi-detached houses in Bangor I can find you an example of a scientist comitting a violent or terrorist act in the name of science.

You were the one that likened evolutionary science to a religion. I was just making a joke based upon this idea ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Skint Academic
You need to convince me that the theory explains everything and is beyond doubt.

I don't need to do anything. But this is an internet forum and we are discussing things and in this discussion that's what I am trying to do.

Nor do I personally think that you will in anyway be persuaded. I was just picking up on you saying that natural selection is fact and that evolution is theory. You have said that before in previous threads. I never understood it, and to be frank, I still don't. I have explored this concept in this discussion and trawled through the details. And in a year's time when this subject comes up I'd bet that you will say the same thing again.

But as other people have said, nothing is beyond doubt. But as I have been trying to point out, the probability of some hypotheses are so negligable that we might as well discount them for all intents and purposes (e.g. we're in a Matrix or that evolution does not happen in its most basic sense).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an observation. Do I have to prove that?

Have you observed its totality?

Have you observed how chemicals arranged themselves into amino acids and proteins and nucleic acids randomly and in contravention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Or is there a different theory about how this process started - has that been observed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to do anything. But this is an internet forum and we are discussing things and in this discussion that's what I am trying to do.

Nor do I personally think that you will in anyway be persuaded. I was just picking up on you saying that natural selection is fact and that evolution is theory.

The theory inadequately describes how (and fails to provide evidence of) the necessary precursor of natural selection.

I have directly observed in vitro evolution in its entirety and yet I still deny that Darwinian evolution is anything other than a theory ... how can this be?

Because none of the processes I have observed can adequately explain how the systems I was working with arose in the first place. And this has nothing to do with creationism! It has everything to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory not having all the answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
Have you observed how chemicals arranged themselves into amino acids and proteins and nucleic acids randomly and in contravention to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Or is there a different theory about how this process started - has that been observed?

Are you saying that total entropy and not just local entropy is decreasing? If so and you can prove it there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
I have directly observed in vitro evolution in its entirety and yet I still deny that Darwinian evolution is anything other than a theory ... how can this be?

So you accept evolution, not specifically Darwinian evolution, is an observed phenomenon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you accept evolution, not specifically Darwinian evolution, is an observed phenomenon?

Amazing isn't it! After all that and I STILL refuse to accept the theory can adequately explain the existence of elephants!

Not really that amazing ... the theory doesn't even come close to explaining the existence of elephants but don't let that stop a good band wagon eh? What would Dawkins do for a pension otherwise :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
I think the point is you chaps are happy to say we don't fully understand the exact process of evolution/natural selection, but you seem rabidly attached to the idea that we can fully observe and prove it's outcome as fact.

Excuse me if I'm putting words in your mouth anorthsite and please correct.

The use of the word "rabidly" is a little too emotive for my liking, and the rest is poorly worded but that's about it.

I disagree with and don't understand this position.

Its like watching a hammer fall. You know it falls, but you don't entirely understand all the forces behind it, eg you think you've got gravity sussed for years, but then someone comes along and totally changes the best theory. You do know though that the hammer didn't start on the ground and has been there ever since.

All this pseudo-science about teenage pregnancy and the benefit society is exactly that - sleight of hand and misdirection. Not scientific.

No, there's plenty of debate on this stuff in other places. Sorry if you can't see the link with rates of reproduction, a changing environment and evolution. Even the BBC rab a story on the ugly stupid theory.

Most baffling of all you seem to be fighting against some 'other' that's supporting creationism or sees 'massive' holes in the current framework. Think somebody mentioned bloodsucked - the OP on this thread. I didn't see that, but maybe if you're looking for it you find it.

Oracle as well remember.

All through the history of science, new discoveries have come along and blown our existing theories out of the water. If you think that will never happen with Darwinism, you're deluded.

I don't exclude the possibility that it will never happen with Darwinism. The modern understanding of the forces behind evolution left Darwin behind a long time ago anyway. You'll notice I tend to talk about evolution not Darwinism. But I maintain that as a process, evolution is as observed as a falling hammer. As I said, I welcome alternative observations, but I haven't yet seen any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
Amazing isn't it! After all that and I STILL refuse to accept the theory can adequately explain the existence of elephants!

Not really that amazing ... the theory doesn't even come close to explaining the existence of elephants but don't let that stop a good band wagon eh? What would Dawkins do for a pension otherwise :)

Personal attacks, eh? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
Did you look at the link?

And can you explain how the process happened?

Yes I did. And if the blind people had got together and shared their information, sat down and discussed it, put the pieces together, maybe repeated each others work, they would have come to the right answer. You know, like scientists do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite
Are you Dawkins? No? Then it wasn't personal.

No, but it was on Dawkins, who some might mistakenly think is some kind of figurehead for me. He's a media celebrity, the scientific equivalent of Jade Goody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I did. And if the blind people had got together and shared their information, sat down and discussed it, put the pieces together, maybe repeated each others work, they would have come to the right answer. You know, like scientists do?

And if they hadn't observed the whole elephant what would they have described?

As for the Dawkins thing ... if you get to call him Jade Goody then why can't I make a quip about his pension? I did not launch an attack on you either directly or by association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the evolution vs Darwinian evolution - again in vitro, laboratory-controlled evolution has few variables. Development of life on earth as we see it has a few more. I don't see how you can extrapolate one as an observable explanation of the other.

I don't. Rather the opposite in fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by "random precision[/b/]". Please define it. I can't argue about a phrase I have never heard before and which on the face of it is nonsensical.

Random precision, more pink floyd then Darwin ;)

What I mean is the chance happening of the perfect environment that contains the perfect conditions for life to thrive.

The random occurance of the perfect world to spark life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.