Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: March 17, 2012
Reputation:
6
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am
(This post was last modified: April 17, 2012 at 10:36 am by mediamogul.)
(April 17, 2012 at 9:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Well, there's still Natural Selection, that's pretty important. The heredity stuff is much more complicated than Darwin imagined, but that's forgivable, given that he wasn't aware of the existence of genes. The main thrust still works, and that's not bad for a theory that originated 150 years ago.
It's an incredibly brilliant theory for it's time and especially considering that they didn't even have Mendelian Genetics to work with yet.
My point was just that it's no longer "Darwinism" and people who call it such are usually trying to make the argument that it's based on faith and a belief system. All part of that wedge strategy.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Posts: 10402
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 10:24 am
I agree with you on that, some people act like we consider Darwin some kind of holy man whose work was perfect and inviolate, when his work has been refined dramatically in just the last 20 years.
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 10:32 am
(April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am)mediamogul Wrote: My point was just that it's no longer "Darwinism" and people who call it such are usually trying to make the argument that it's based on faith and a belief system. All part of that wedge strategy.
Indeed. Such people don't seem to grasp that scientific advances stand on their own merit and that of the supporting evidence totally independent of any authority figure, no matter how eminent or revered. Time and again they conflate the man (or woman) with the science in a vain attempt to discredit both. They don't realise that by mislabelling science with the trappings of their own belief system, they are in fact ridiculing the support structure that gave them the platform in the first place.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: March 17, 2012
Reputation:
6
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 10:39 am
(April 17, 2012 at 10:32 am)Stimbo Wrote: (April 17, 2012 at 10:14 am)mediamogul Wrote: My point was just that it's no longer "Darwinism" and people who call it such are usually trying to make the argument that it's based on faith and a belief system. All part of that wedge strategy.
Indeed. Such people don't seem to grasp that scientific advances stand on their own merit and that of the supporting evidence totally independent of any authority figure, no matter how eminent or revered. Time and again they conflate the man (or woman) with the science in a vain attempt to discredit both. They don't realise that by mislabelling science with the trappings of their own belief system, they are in fact ridiculing the support structure that gave them the platform in the first place.
That's a very good point. They are essentially arguing for their own religion by accusing "Darwinism" of being a religion.
With the wedge strategy it's more about them making the political argument that "Darwinism" is enough like a religion to warrant their religion being taught as a competing theory. They tried the "Creationism is science." routine first but got laughed out of the court system so they went for the "Darwinism is a 'faith'" route instead. This is literally phase 1, which has gained some ground recently. Damn Tennessee.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 11:07 am
(April 14, 2012 at 5:59 am)Phil Wrote: I think these creotards come from very tiny and mostly familial gene pools and have read somewhere in their bible that Google is real science.
They're seventh generation inbreeds. How they can survive, poses a single working braincell and reproduce is astonishing. Realistically, they should of died out long ago.
They like to think they know evolution well. But statements like - A wale evolving into a bear or an elephant giving birth to a guerilla just demonstrates how little they actually know.
They're not talking about nor arguing against evolution, they're talking and arguing against something they made up. I mean, giraffes giving birth to a zebra? Sheesh!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 2:43 pm
mediamogul Wrote:Did you read the article?
Hell no. I have seen Ann Coulter pull the 'evolution is just a theory' card, so I know right off the bat that anything she has to say about Darwin is going to be complete bullshit.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 1965
Threads: 83
Joined: June 15, 2010
Reputation:
37
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Why is this waste of electrons in the Religion Forum? It needs to be moved to Life Sciences.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: March 17, 2012
Reputation:
6
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 3:33 pm
(April 17, 2012 at 2:43 pm)Faith No More Wrote: mediamogul Wrote:Did you read the article?
Hell no. I have seen Ann Coulter pull the 'evolution is just a theory' card, so I know right off the bat that anything she has to say about Darwin is going to be complete bullshit.
It was good for a laugh for the first few paragraphs. Then it just made my head hurt and I got worried that I was losing IQ points.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"All thinking men are atheists." -Ernest Hemmingway
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -Voltaire
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 17, 2012 at 3:47 pm
(April 17, 2012 at 2:56 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: Why is this waste of electrons in the Religion Forum? It needs to be moved to Life Sciences.
Done.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 118
Threads: 10
Joined: April 13, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?
April 29, 2012 at 1:31 am
(This post was last modified: April 29, 2012 at 1:32 am by Alter2Ego.)
(April 14, 2012 at 5:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Oh dear, another clueless christian who learnt everything they think they know about evolution from Answersingenesis. And therefore actually know nothing.
Heads up for you kid.
You need to first prove that the universe is only 6000 years old before you try to attack evolution.
And given that EVERY field of scientific endeavour supports an old universe,
wellll... good luck with that 
Since I don't believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, you're using the wrong rebuttal with me. According to Bible chronology, humans have existed about 6,000 years. Notice I bolded the word "humans." Nobody knows the age of the universe. It's most logically billions of years old.
|
