+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 36

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Questions for Darwinists

    Questions for Darwinists:


    http://questionsfordarwinists.blogspot.com/

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Please don't confuse asking question with providing proof.

    Please provide positive proof, evidence, research or data for Creation or Intelligent Design.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    1. Is it possible for anyone, however well-educated, to pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, without being labeled a "flat earther" or a "fundie"?
    Yes. Look in any journal of evolution or biology and you will see hundreds of questions on the subject of evolution. You will see hypotheses being presented and other hypotheses being torn down. If you're especially interested in people challenging other ideas then the best bet is probably the letters journal.

    2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Should someone with such doubts be maligned as being ignorant and against all science?
    That depends on whether or not they understand it. For example, the author of the blog post you linked to obviously has no understanding of the difference between a system that is subject to replication, mutation and natural selection, and one that is not. That person is an idiot, and would rightly be ridiculed.

    3. Does the fact that someone subscribes to the claim that all life originated from a single living cell, and moreover that process could only have taken place through random mutation followed by selection make them intelligent, and well-versed in "science"?
    Of course not, but there is probably a positive correlation between people that take the time to learn about evolution and people that take the time to learn about other areas of science. It is not a causal relationship as your question asks, but likely correlative.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    I found this to be most interesting / insightful part...I dont claim to agree with all stated ...but dismissing it simplisticaly and deriding the authour as an idiot (shows the style of of the attacking author) without any substantive rationale ...is not my choice of addressing it ( I am personaly more persuaded by genetic drift/shift models used in virology prediction than the original blog's mutation theory...admittedly similiar ..but more refined and better modelling results) the comments here on this forum show more about authors ego's than science.

    THE ARTICLE..."Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, including accusing the opponent of scientific ignorance, belief in a flat earth, and wholesale rejection of reason. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the skeptic.

    This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision."


    Kazza "That depends on whether or not they understand it. For example, the author of the blog post you linked to obviously has no understanding of the difference between a system that is subject to replication, mutation and natural selection, and one that is not. That person is an idiot, and would rightly be ridiculed".

    and

    THE ARTICLE ..."To suggest that one must fill Darwinian Gap with a competing theory or else remain silent, flies in the face of hundreds of years of scientific practice, process, and common sense."


    LY "Please don't confuse asking question with providing proof.

    Please provide positive proof, evidence, research or data for Creation or Intelligent Design."

    As the article is the original subject your asking to provide proof shows you didnt read it or understand it. It supports science ...but questions the methodology and impartiality and thus the veracity of investigations when evolution is espoused by the scientific collective....


    Last edited by reentry; 07-16-2009 at 05:50 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Quote Originally Posted by reentry View Post
    I found this to be most interesting / insightful part...I dont claim to agree with all stated ...but dismissing it simplisticaly without any rationale ...is not my choice of addressing it ( I am personaly more persuaded by genetic drift/shift models used in virology prediction) the comments here on this forum show more about authors ego's than science.

    "Pretending to be very intelligent, particularly with respect to biological and biochemical processes, is generally accomplished by a few short sentences, including accusing the opponent of scientific ignorance, belief in a flat earth, and wholesale rejection of reason. No mention need be made of any Biblical passage by the skeptic.

    This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision."


    Kazza "That depends on whether or not they understand it. For example, the author of the blog post you linked to obviously has no understanding of the difference between a system that is subject to replication, mutation and natural selection, and one that is not. That person is an idiot, and would rightly be ridiculed".

    LY "Please don't confuse asking question with providing proof.

    Please provide positive proof, evidence, research or data for Creation or Intelligent Design."


    Someone who questions some of the details of the Theory of Evolution in a simple manner is generally not ridiculed (or at least should not be), because the majority of the time their questions are rather easily answered. BarackZero, however, is not one of these people. His questions are constantly being answered, his statements are constantly being refuted, he keeps being a pompous asshole, and his agenda clearly has religious undertones if you have read any of his other comments or posts.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    I do not doubt it...but in this case the author of the article was wrongly called an idiot for proposing a train thought for consideration ...not the poster.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
    Someone who questions some of the details of the Theory of Evolution in a simple manner is generally not ridiculed (or at least should not be), because the majority of the time their questions are rather easily answered. BarackZero, however, is not one of these people. His questions are constantly being answered, his statements are constantly being refuted, he keeps being a pompous asshole, and his agenda clearly has religious undertones if you have read any of his other comments or posts.
    Last edited by reentry; 07-16-2009 at 05:55 PM. Reason: too harsh

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    1. Is it possible for anyone, however well-educated, to pose reasonable questions on the subject of evolution, without being labeled a "flat earther" or a "fundie"?
    Not unless they make it clear that they are not a "flat earther" or a "fundie". They have to make it clear that they are asking a reasonable, legitimate question. Unfortunatley, such rational people with rational skepticism of Evolution are grossly outnumbered by those who quesiton Evolution have have no real knowledge and legitimacy to talk about it.

    2. Suppose someone has doubts as to the ability of a simplistic two-step mechanism, viz., random mutation followed by natural selection, to produce the entire plant and animal kingdom, starting with only one hypothetical living cell, which has yet to be described in even the most crude manner. Should someone with such doubts be maligned as being ignorant and against all science?
    No, although I probably would accuse them of having a stagnant mind. The only real doubts of this process are usually the result of a low scope of imagination.

    3. Does the fact that someone subscribes to the claim that all life originated from a single living cell, and moreover that process could only have taken place through random mutation followed by selection make them intelligent, and well-versed in "science"?
    Of course not, they first have to actually know what they're talking about. Of course, of those who do know what they are talking about they overwhelmingly agree that the above statement "ll life originated from a single living cell, and moreover that process could only have taken place through random mutation followed by selection" is correct.

    While there is legitimate debate about some of the finer details of the Theory of Evolution, there is virtually no legitimate debate about whether or not Evolutoin, in general, is true.


    The author does have a point about the degeneration of arguments, but (s)he is disagreeable in two areas. First off, the initial discussion about the cell and NEC monitor is almost irrelevant to anything thereafter. Also, the "fallicy of false dillema" argument is very weak. The dillema is hardly false and is hardly a fallicy. it goes with this:

    This knee-jerk reaction has been so popularized by Richard Dawkins' and his ardent admirers that it has become instantaneous, even presumptive of victory. Any further resistance by a skeptic is futile, and only invites harsher, more malicious condescension and derision.
    The overwhelming majority of Creationists and I.D.ers have brought this entirely upon themselves. Any reasonable skeptic has, unfortunately, been drowned out by the blathering intellectual incompetence of almost everyone around him who supports Creation and I.D.. "blathering intellectual incompetence" was probably a little harsh, but many of the Creation and I.D. supports don't have enough knowledge of Evolutionary Biology to really understand the topic. The fallicy of false dillema only applies to those who know what they are talking about, and their question is fair. As for everyone else, it is an effective way to expose the questioner's lack of knowledge and credibility.

    Of course, there are those who do support Creation and I.D. and are well versed in Science and question Evolution (and support their own beliefs) for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, such people are extremely rare. BarackZero is definately not one of them; if he was he could at least think of an intelligible response to some of the rebuttals he gets.

    Creationists and I.D.ers are mostly reasonable people, they just don't know enough. If they studied the field of biology further most of them would probably draw different conclusions. I sometimes question the idea of the Big Bang, but I know nothing about quantum physics, so I'm not going to argue.
    Last edited by Blue Crab of PAIN!!!; 07-16-2009 at 06:07 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    I agree with most of your statements....
    I think the key for me is ...they are theories...not proofs...some may be stronger than others and near on irrefutable...but still theories...

    The schematic diagram is just a marketing tool...used to stupefy the majority of people and in reality may be a breach of copyright of the manufacturers.
    T he creationist part is not really put forward as a major issue but the aggrivated way of dismissing it ( ie your using weight of numbers as a proof of evidence...instead of using scientific arguement)is questioned in the article. I dont think questioning and requestioning is a poor scientific tool and would not call it sign of stagnation or label it as having no legitamacy unless the evidence was overwhelming and definative that the study was worthless. Noting the numbers of diverging thoughts and beliefs out there ...anything that could help those still not convinced is probably worthwhile.
    there are many areas surrounding the single cell theorum that are still unresolved...essentially I agree with your train of thought...but some factions have proposed many different single cell organisms have resulted in todays myriad organisms...though everything comes from single cell life...there may have been more than 1 single "cell form" that evolved though.
    This is often overlooked and causes consternation.
    I am a Christian...I have never hidden this and I also have what I would call rudimentary but aging knowledge of physics(electronic engineering).... . and newer understanding of medicine ..I have studied and questioned many theories...this is as it should be!...(until they become facts anyway)...the big bang( look at the einstein was wrong thread) has some very interesting anomolies..such as it requires the universe to expand at roughly 4 times the speed of light in the first segment of expansion...or that white v black holes theorum or the 4 major forces combining to become super force... rationale...but I digress.

    The article in question asks for questioning minds to be brought back to this area of science...not for anything else or in some form support of ID or creationism...
    The fact is ....BZ has not produced a statement of his own ...and may be rightly chastised as a cut and paste the run person...as he really is just not contributing any personal insight or information to consider.

    The responses to the post were much more interesting and insightful.



    Quote Originally Posted by Blue Crab of PAIN!!! View Post
    Not unless they make it clear that they are not a "flat earther" or a "fundie". They have to make it clear that they are asking a reasonable, legitimate question. Unfortunatley, such rational people with rational skepticism of Evolution are grossly outnumbered by those who quesiton Evolution have have no real knowledge and legitimacy to talk about it.


    No, although I probably would accuse them of having a stagnant mind. The only real doubts of this process are usually the result of a low scope of imagination.



    Of course not, they first have to actually know what they're talking about. Of course, of those who do know what they are talking about they overwhelmingly agree that the above statement "ll life originated from a single living cell, and moreover that process could only have taken place through random mutation followed by selection" is correct.

    While there is legitimate debate about some of the finer details of the Theory of Evolution, there is virtually no legitimate debate about whether or not Evolutoin, in general, is true.


    The author does have a point about the degeneration of arguments, but (s)he is disagreeable in two areas. First off, the initial discussion about the cell and NEC monitor is almost irrelevant to anything thereafter. Also, the "fallicy of false dillema" argument is very weak. The dillema is hardly false and is hardly a fallicy. it goes with this:



    The overwhelming majority of Creationists and I.D.ers have brought this entirely upon themselves. Any reasonable skeptic has, unfortunately, been drowned out by the blathering intellectual incompetence of almost everyone around him who supports Creation and I.D.. "blathering intellectual incompetence" was probably a little harsh, but many of the Creation and I.D. supports don't have enough knowledge of Evolutionary Biology to really understand the topic. The fallicy of false dillema only applies to those who know what they are talking about, and their question is fair. As for everyone else, it is an effective way to expose the questioner's lack of knowledge and credibility.

    Of course, there are those who do support Creation and I.D. and are well versed in Science and question Evolution (and support their own beliefs) for legitimate reasons. Unfortunately, such people are extremely rare. BarackZero is definately not one of them; if he was he could at least think of an intelligible response to some of the rebuttals he gets.

    Creationists and I.D.ers are mostly reasonable people, they just don't know enough. If they studied the field of biology further most of them would probably draw different conclusions. I sometimes question the idea of the Big Bang, but I know nothing about quantum physics, so I'm not going to argue.
    Last edited by reentry; 07-16-2009 at 07:25 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Are they reasonable people? While I'm willing to admit there are moderates. It's the moderates that are supporting the die hards who in short do not know what they are trying to do or what result it will bring.

    Most of the reasons that people have to disagree with the theory stems from a lack of understanding of what a theory is.

    Finding one flaw, finding many flaws does not invalidate the theory. The millions of things that have been and continue to be understood and explained are what make it a theory. The many advancements in our society that have taken place are a testament to this.

    Creationists and I.Der's want to throw that away on the grounds of there "political" popular opinion. The logic of more people believing that it's true does not make a thing correct.

    This is not the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have taken things that he has learned and things people that people who understand things have told him and either changed his mind or realized that perhaps there is a reason so many people believe what they do and that there is a TONN of evidence for it.

    Creationists and I.Der's don't. They keep going at it. They don't do experiments, They don't do studies. They do advertisements and educational campaigns. They are not interested in the truth they are interested in forcing there opinion on others. It's apparently OK to lie and mis-lead when your doing it for god. (As a christian I find this insulting)

    Normally someone would tell these people that they have gone to far. However, this doesn't happen because these are religious people and therefore if you disagree they will kick you out of there religion or make you believe that you don't believe enough.

    Either way, the media won't fight religion. Anyone who does fight is automatically put on the extreme other end and called an Atheist, and therefore must be against them on a purely dislike of religious grounds. (which isn't true)

    I apologize for going off on bit of a tangent. However, creationist bug me. They can take the advantages of a Western culture and civilization with one hand and than demand that we should live in a theocracy and do as they say with the other. It's almost like they don't realize there actions have consequences. Consequences that are clearly visible in the middle east.
    Last edited by Spector567; 07-16-2009 at 07:09 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Agreed but this is a tangental consequence of this topical subject...it is not the focus of post 1 yet...until BZ states his purpose it cannot be.
    The article author took flack for no rationale reason from 2 supposed proponents of the science crusade.
    The article author even predicted the methodology of the criticism (s)he would receive accurately..showing the level of thought the respondents produced.
    This thread has not done science any favours IMO.
    I think I have explained my point sufficiently..I hope so anyway.
    thank you for your honest thoughts.
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    Are they reasonable people? While I'm willing to admit there are moderates. It's the moderates that are supporting the die hards who in short do not know what they are trying to do or what result it will bring.

    Most of the reasons that people have to disagree with the theory stems from a lack of understanding of what a theory is.

    Finding one flaw, finding many flaws does not invalidate the theory. The millions of things that have been and continue to be understood and explained are what make it a theory. The many advancements in our society that have taken place are a testament to this.

    Creationists and I.Der's want to throw that away on the grounds of there "political" popular opinion. The logic of more people believing that it's true does not make a thing correct.

    This is not the actions of a reasonable person. A reasonable person would have taken things that he has learned and things people that people who understand things have told him and either changed his mind or realized that perhaps there is a reason so many people believe what they do and that there is a TONN of evidence for it.

    Creationists and I.Der's don't. They keep going at it. They don't do experiments, They don't do studies. They do advertisements and educational campaigns. They are not interested in the truth they are interested in forcing there opinion on others. It's apparently OK to lie and mis-lead when your doing it for god. (As a christian I find this insulting)

    Normally someone would tell these people that they have gone to far. However, this doesn't happen because these are religious people and therefore if you disagree they will kick you out of there religion or make you believe that you don't believe enough.

    Either way, the media won't fight religion. Anyone who does fight is automatically put on the extreme other end and called an Atheist, and therefore must be against them on a purely dislike of religious grounds. (which isn't true)

    I apologize for going off on bit of a tangent. However, creationist bug me. They can take the advantages of a Western culture and civilization with one hand and than demand that we should live in a theocracy and do as they say with the other. It's almost like they don't realize there actions have consequences. Consequences that are clearly visible in the middle east.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    First I"d like to say thankyou for not being Barackzero. He has been a waste of space and has been bring up these random threads for some time and than when someone response with intelligence he ignores them and insults them and everyone else. He has over 270 posts full of insults and has addressed no points besides his own.

    [quote=reentry;779211]I agree with most of your statements....
    I think the key for me is ...they are theories...not proofs...some may be stronger than others and near on irrefutable...but still theories...[quote]

    A good point overall. However, this is where the lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. First off there are no Laws. There is the Theory of Gravity, The theory of thermodynamics, The theory of the atom. There are billions of pieces of proof for them that have out weight all other theories before them but humans are not gods and we don't know everything.

    Evolution is a theory that has millions of pieces of evidence and a thousand flaws (0.1%). So therefore just like gravity and thermodynamics we don't throw thoes out or revert to less proven thoeries just because they are theories.
    Creationism is a thoery that has a thousand pieces of evidence and a million flaws. In short it's a terrible theory.

    ( ie your using weight of numbers as a proof of evidence...instead of using scientific arguement)is questioned in the article. I dont think questioning and requestioning is a poor scientific tool and would not call it sign of stagnation
    Creationists out number people who understand evolution in this world and in the united states. They out number anyone who understands evolution probally on an order of 5:1.

    Creationism has also been around for over 10,000 years and at least 500 years of active scientific study. During that time period it was LAW and anyone who questioned it was thrown out. Darwin waited over 20 years to refine his paper in order to cover all the loop holes. Since than more branches of science from geology to palentology have fit the thoery and have been explained by it.

    Creationism has had over 100 years to come up with more evidence, run experiments, and write papers. For 50 of those years evolution was still not allowed to be taught in schools. They havn't come up with anything besides flaws in the thoery of evolution. Mos of those were disproven after advances in techonology and further study.

    many areas surrounding the single cell theorum that are still unresolved...essentially I agree with your train of thought...but some factions have proposed many different single cell organisms have resulted in todays myriad organisms...though everything comes from single cell life...there may have been more than 1 single "cell form" that evolved though.
    This is often overlooked and causes consternation.
    This has not been overlooked. It is being studied and possibly could be true. Recently scientists were able to trace back a single male genome 225,000 years. They were doing this to help determin if there was a single branch of humanity or did it co-evolve at the same time. This was a theory as well. There finding suggest that that is not the case.

    However multiple cells are still possible, and probally true. It just doesn't have same marketing ring as "a single cell" that's why in creationist litature it says how silly it is for a single cell to spawn all life and not that there were billions of cells that evolved, That sounds to resonable. Also abigenises does say there was a single cell to start off with. This is true there will always be a first.


    the big bang( look at the einstein was wrong thread) has some very interesting anomolies..such as it requires the universe to expand at roughly 4 times the speed of light in the first segment of expansion...or that white v black holes theorum or the 4 major forces combining to become super force... rationale...but I digress.
    The big bang theory is outside evolution just like abogenisis is. They are not the same thoery. You do not need to have the history of the universe in your hands to have a good theory.
    You could still say god created the universe. It doesn't mean we should stop looking for how. Or that further studies are needed and possibly a new theory. The big bang is one of many thoeries. All being discussed.



    I've run out of time i wanted to say more pertant stuff. (and spell check)

    I am not trying to say that you shouldn't have brought up this point what i'm trying to say is that you have been mis-informed on the actual facts. Studies are being done by intelligent people around the globe. They just don't call them disproves of darwin. All the flaws found in the theory are being studied, They were found by people studiing the theory.


    The reason that most people are tired of creationist arguments is simple they can be summed up in a few catigories

    1. Disproves of evolution (not proof there own theory)
    2. Arguments of complexity. So far in recent history things we thought were too complex we've been able to solve. It's an argument saying that we don't know yet therefore we will never know and should be thrown out. (the one linked above)

    A question for you. If we actually applied creationism to science what would we gain??? Teaching it would take at most 20h. All the answers have already been found. All the gaps are explained that god did it. We may as well stop doing everything.

    What would be the point of assuming or telling others to assume that god did it. You can't prove god.


    In short why creationism isn't discussed is that, it doesn't provide much discussion.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    530

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Firstly let me apologise as I had to go to work...and also for spooling off on the Big Bang tangent, but if we are truthful...Blue Crab did mention it first. I also apologise for the length of the reply...but it's my last on this thread...so bear with me please.

    I agree with your explanation of most things and accept that many theories are in fact just that ..truths..
    impossible to conclusively prove but logic dictates that they must be almost indisputable.

    Personally I would even go as far as to state that Darwinism could be seen as more of a marketing trick than anything...I believe in evoution despite being a Christian...yes it is possible!
    Now I know that hackles will be raised in this the hundedth year since publication...but his reluctantly published works in fact were an extention of his grandfathers works on butterflys and indeed 'borrowed" largely from Lamark...Lamark had the misfortune to try to publish his ideas in english...he did this poorly and instead of the word need being used , his work used 'wanted"...so giraffes "wanted" longer necks to reach leaves etc...some still ridicule him even today...but as a ESL user I feel for him.
    Darwin admits he borrowed from all his "friends" inclusive of a largely overlooked magnificent researcher Wallace(he formulated most of Darwins research methods and links).
    In calling it Darwinism we celebrate the ability of a privledged person in an age full of repression to have a idea published...it was however admittedly brave for him to do it.
    That the publicity drove him to study barnicles for the rest of his career also may have something to add to the story....
    Darwinism is a crude form of the modern evolution theory...which encompasses geographical limits, fossil study, selective breeding , anatomical similarieties, genis variation, convergent evolution , molecular biology and lastly my favorite active evolution...virology, wher we get to study evolution as it happens ..we get to stimulate environmental and nutritional stimuli and see what happen...hopefully what we have concluded would.

    Great stuff... however the point I made earlier is that the pack descended and derided the article author (third party ) based on their own biases and beliefs based on an individuals (BZ) past performances...they did not judge the evidence at hand...that is where they erred IMO....

    Dissent is an allowable and healthy part of science and whilst not allowable in this forum, it should be encouraged and not dismissed as "stupid" just because you cannot understand or agree with it.
    There are alternate theories...they are far less likely to be accurate but they must be dealt with in a scientifically sound manner ...not by calling the author stupid and then failing to show why in any scientific manner ...

    The Science club here was on its usual pack hunt for BZ and used these derogatory terms to describe the articles author's ideas as stupid and pro ID/creationist.
    If they had taken the time to read and contextualise the article they could have noticed it actually supports them but does not exclude outside input or new ideas.... no matter how strange.
    Evolution is real is pretty established...the smaller mechanisms.. still are interesting to debate though.
    Not all Christians hold that creationism is the only path....some of us believe it is a description that the populace of the time could understand..as are many of the elements in the Bible IMO. I hold that it is a the greatest of guides... but the modern Bible is primarily a guide chosen /selected by commitee for its abilty to create/guide a harmonious and diverse society ,... not a infallable truth in itself.
    My Clerical friends seem to have no problem with this...its only the zealots on both sides that want the Bible to be infallable and only literally interpeted.

    Just my current opinion though
    ...



    .
    Last edited by reentry; 07-17-2009 at 06:12 AM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Quote Originally Posted by reentry View Post



    Dissent is an allowable and healthy part of science and whilst not allowable in this forum, it should be encouraged and not dismissed as "stupid" just because you cannot understand or agree with it.
    Unfortunately, dismissing debate and calling others vile names is the FIRST line taken by Darwinists. It is as reliable as the rotation of earth on its axis. Both wobble, of course. Not only does the axis precess, but it also wobbles in a sinusoidal manner about the circular precession.

    This science lesson is brought to you courtesy of someone who is relentlessly called "stupid" by narcissistic Darwinists.


    There are alternate theories...they are far less likely to be accurate but they must be dealt with in a scientifically sound manner ...not by calling the author stupid and then failing to show why in any scientific manner ...
    Just as the name-calling by narcissistic Darwinists is relentless, so too is the demand for an "alternate theory."

    In fact, this is just a straw man argument that attempts to change the subject. Answer the questions posed with respect to Darwinism, don't evade them. Evasion is so very anti-scientific.

    The Science club here was on its usual pack hunt for BZ and used these derogatory terms to describe the articles author's ideas as stupid and pro ID/creationist.
    Just so. How unusual it is for someone to make such an admission.



    My Clerical friends seem to have no problem with this...its only the zealots on both sides that want the Bible to be infallable (SIC) and only literally interpeted.

    Just my current opinion though
    ...
    .
    My comments have overwhelmingly been concerned with Darwinism, and the insuperable statistics it pretends to surmount through generalities and wishful thinking. Offering up "equations" as "A>B>C>D" and pablum such as "selection does the trick" appeal to the Science of the Gaps.

    Sort of like, "We'll get the answers for you some day, just give us more ******* for research. Lots more. Oh, and you're stupid too. Have a nice day."

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Personally I would even go as far as to state that Darwinism could be seen as more of a marketing trick than anything...
    Interesting point. It really is a marketing trick but by who. I have never heard a person who understands evolution describe themselves as a Darwinist. Never in my entire life. Just as a very religious person probably doesn't describe themselves as a theist. These are names other people made for them.

    I believe in evoution despite being a Christian...yes it is possible!
    It is very possible and very common. I'm more surprised you had to say it than the fact that your christian. Where i live no connection between religion, politics, or science is made. It's kinda scary that in other places it is.
    The Catholic Church has even stated that evolution does not contradict there beliefs.

    [quote]Great stuff... however the point I made earlier is that the pack descended and derided the article author (third party ) based on their own biases and beliefs based on an individuals (BZ) past performances...they did not judge the evidence at hand...that is where they erred IMO....[quote]
    Dissent is an allowable and healthy part of science and whilst not allowable in this forum, it should be encouraged and not dismissed as "stupid" just because you cannot understand or agree with it.
    Very true but it is a required part of science, debate and understanding to consider the validity, the source and the bias of said source when using information and filtering what information is useful. If someone generally insulted, called you narcissistic godless leftest and never took part in actual debate or providing a real opinion besides copy and pasted info, out of context quoting on unrelated topics or people. BZ even in is very ironic post was unable to not call people names "narcissistic Darwinist" and still managed to critic your spelling as if it applied to the thread. Coupled with his multiple bannings in this forum, and at least one banning and a nuking in another are many of the reasons why his arguments are not taken seriously. Nore should they be.

    Now if you had brought up this topic and had provide some summary or suggest what the thread was about than you probably would have receive a better response. Or even if BZ had manged to phrase a proper post without political dogma and insults I'm sure things might have gone better.

    As humans we must be able to consider the source usefulness of information or be overwhelmed by it. Those who don't cannot consider any topic rationally. (I've recently discovered that the topic of bias is not part of the school curriculum in the united states.)

    My Clerical friends seem to have no problem with this...its only the zealots on both sides that want the Bible to be infallable and only literally interpeted.
    This is again very true. The trick is however that the zeolots are the ones that make the greatest noise and thus get the most grease and attention. Also the number of zealots is not equally distributed to both sides of an argument. Certain arguments have more than others.
    Last edited by Spector567; 07-17-2009 at 02:48 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,081

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Quote Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
    Evasion is so very anti-scientific.

    Oh, you mean like yow you EVADE ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND REBUTTALS EVERYONE AROUND YOU MAKES?


    CAVE FISH DAMNIT! WHAT ABOUT THE CAVE FISH? HOW DO THEY REFUTE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
    Unfortunately, dismissing debate and calling others vile names is the FIRST line taken by Darwinists. It is as reliable as the rotation of earth on its axis. Both wobble, of course. Not only does the axis precess, but it also wobbles in a sinusoidal manner about the circular precession.
    Way to be a gigantic hypocrite BZ.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    724

    Re: Questions for Darwinists

    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    Interesting point. It really is a marketing trick but by who. I have never heard a person who understands evolution describe themselves as a Darwinist. Never in my entire life. Just as a very religious person probably doesn't describe themselves as a theist. These are names other people made for them.

    http://www.vqronline.org/articles/20...ons-darwinist/

    You really should get out more.
    It's a big world out there. Time for you to learn from it.

    http://www.amazon.com/Darwinism-Defe.../dp/0201062739


    Quote Originally Posted by Spector567 View Post
    It is very possible and very common. I'm more surprised you had to say it than the fact that your (SIC) christian. (SIC) Where i (SIC) live no connection between religion, politics, or science is made. It's kinda scary that in other places it is.
    The Catholic Church has even stated that evolution does not contradict there (SIC) beliefs.
    As I said, you don't get out much.

    Anywhere one sees a discussion of Darwinism, the narcissists instantly go to their "you're just a stupid fundie flat-earther" mode. Were you honest and observant, you would admit as much.
    Last edited by BarackZero; 07-18-2009 at 05:03 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Some Questions Please...
    By Evolution_1972 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 01:49 PM
  2. Questions on 9/11
    By Ronald in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 11-21-2007, 12:55 PM
  3. New to DIY, few questions
    By Anexanhume in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-11-2007, 09:31 PM
  4. All About You? (Ten Questions)
    By enlightenment in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 12:35 AM
  5. E's 10 Questions To You
    By enlightenment in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 07:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •