U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-21-2013, 11:58 PM
 
9,112 posts, read 5,619,875 times
Reputation: 3853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
There is nothing ambiguous about it. We simply don't know exactly how life first became on this planet.....
You seem to be assuming that because evolution can't explain (yet) how life first got started, it is incorrect. That is not how it works. There are plenty of ideas of how life got started..... but it's pretty hard to deduce what happened biochemically. So what?
So what? So what? Well the point obviously is that if you cannot scientifically prove a thing, such as how life came into existence by natural processes, you cannot claim that evolution science disproves creation or intelligent design. It's really just that simple.

And, for the record once again, I have never claimed that evolution is not an observable phenomenon, with regard to the more finely focused definition that contends that changes within individual species does occur and may very well be explained, at least partially, in Darwinian terms. I think there is adequate evidentiary support to believe that variation and adaptation does occur within species, and so I do not argue against that point at all. This is a mischaracterization of what constitutes intelligent design theory, which does not dismiss natural processes producing variation and adaptation and changes within species. The argument comes into play when neo-Darwinism extends beyond the empirical evidence that tends to support such changes, to include the unproven and scientifically unsubstantiated position of origin of species from a single common ancestor that evolved into all living things by means of genetic mutation and natural selection. The neo-Darwinists want to use the evidence which supports one set of phenomenon as proof of the more broad Darwinian evolution, when no such support exists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
And guess what? Newtonian Physics doesn't explain everything either, especially the origins of the universe, yet where is outrage about Newtonian Physics still being taught? Huh?
Well first, we haven't been discussing Newtonian Physics, nor is it related to the matter being discussed. Secondly, the flaws are not being hidden or denied, such as the case with Darwinism. Schools teach Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which in some cases rejects certain elements of Newtonian physics.

 
Old 03-22-2013, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,891 posts, read 31,788,057 times
Reputation: 12631
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
So what? So what? Well the point obviously is that if you cannot scientifically prove a thing, such as how life came into existence by natural processes, you cannot claim that evolution science disproves creation or intelligent design. It's really just that simple.

And, for the record once again, I have never claimed that evolution is not an observable phenomenon, with regard to the more finely focused definition that contends that changes within individual species does occur and may very well be explained, at least partially, in Darwinian terms. I think there is adequate evidentiary support to believe that variation and adaptation does occur within species, and so I do not argue against that point at all. This is a mischaracterization of what constitutes intelligent design theory, which does not dismiss natural processes producing variation and adaptation and changes within species. The argument comes into play when neo-Darwinism extends beyond the empirical evidence that tends to support such changes, to include the unproven and scientifically unsubstantiated position of origin of species from a single common ancestor that evolved into all living things by means of genetic mutation and natural selection. The neo-Darwinists want to use the evidence which supports one set of phenomenon as proof of the more broad Darwinian evolution, when no such support exists.



Well first, we haven't been discussing Newtonian Physics, nor is it related to the matter being discussed. Secondly, the flaws are not being hidden or denied, such as the case with Darwinism. Schools teach Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which in some cases rejects certain elements of Newtonian physics.
You are being badly mislead.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 01:03 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,218 posts, read 6,803,475 times
Reputation: 2034
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
So what? So what? Well the point obviously is that if you cannot scientifically prove a thing, such as how life came into existence by natural processes, you cannot claim that evolution science disproves creation or intelligent design. It's really just that simple.
LOLz. And again.... Is that intelligent designer Muslim, Christian, Hindu, etc? Or you don't know? Can you at least hypothesize that instead of tip toeing around the issue?

Quote:
And, for the record once again, I have never claimed that evolution is not an observable phenomenon, with regard to the more finely focused definition that contends that changes within individual species does occur and may very well be explained, at least partially, in Darwinian terms. I think there is adequate evidentiary support to believe that variation and adaptation does occur within species, and so I do not argue against that point at all. This is a mischaracterization of what constitutes intelligent design theory, which does not dismiss natural processes producing variation and adaptation and changes within species. The argument comes into play when neo-Darwinism extends beyond the empirical evidence that tends to support such changes, to include the unproven and scientifically unsubstantiated position of origin of species from a single common ancestor that evolved into all living things by means of genetic mutation and natural selection. The neo-Darwinists want to use the evidence which supports one set of phenomenon as proof of the more broad Darwinian evolution, when no such support exists.
Why again are you using Darwin anywhere in a paragraph about evolution in 2013? What's wrong with you? Can't discuss anything past Darwin?

Quote:
Well first, we haven't been discussing Newtonian Physics, nor is it related to the matter being discussed. Secondly, the flaws are not being hidden or denied, such as the case with Darwinism. Schools teach Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which in some cases rejects certain elements of Newtonian physics.
Sure we are. When you stop inserting Darwin into your defense then we can stop discussing how Newton has discovered anything relevant to quantum mechanics.......
 
Old 03-22-2013, 04:34 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,285,422 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Fine .. then you shall be forced to admit that Darwinian Evolution does NOTHING to disprove creation or intelligent design
What do you mean "forced to admit"? I never claimed otherwise. You are taking my own positions and acting like I am "forced" into them when I am perfectly happy with what they are and why I hold them. Sounds like you are engaged in a pissing context of which only you are a part. This is not a competition. Drop the posturing.

One can not disprove unsubstantiated and unfalsifiable claims. Creationism is unsubstantiated nonsense. Plain and simple. There is nothing there for me to disprove. Nor is this a thread about creationism so stop trying to derail it.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 05:14 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 3,059,973 times
Reputation: 2869
For those wanting Creation Theory taught in schools, you ok with teaching Hindu, Shinto and Islam Creation Theories too? Considering the supposed separation between church and state in this country, we can't just assume to teach only the Christian Theory as the alternate to Evolution. Might as well teach other theories too.

If people want creation theories in school, maybe do it when Greek mythology is taught.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 06:28 AM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,192 posts, read 4,393,170 times
Reputation: 3821
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Why again are you using Darwin anywhere in a paragraph about evolution in 2013? What's wrong with you? Can't discuss anything past Darwin?
So true. Once a person uses the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinian evolution" they have already lost the argment and you can know that they are completely ignorant on the subject. Or being willfully disingenuous.

Similarly, someone using the term "evolutionists."

(I've seen variations on the latter term such as "EVILutionists" and "Darwinistas.")
 
Old 03-22-2013, 07:38 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,169,735 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Evolution is ONLY about what replicating agents do. Where those replicating agents came from is a different subject and I will not follow you on your attempts to hijack and derail the thread.
Scientists have tied Darwinism to the beginning of life. Like or not, it has became a part of evolutionary theory because of evolutionists and cannot be seperated into distinct catagories. Darwin himself taught that they were intertwined. In other words, you cannot pick and choose what to believe because it doesn't fit you preconceived notions.

When the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, it offered a plausible and rational alternative to God Did It. Evidence in its favor existed. Selective breeding of animals greatly changed them. That this might have occurred by natural selection made sense.

But natural selection did not explain where life came from in the first place. The notion of abiogenesis—that life began by accident in remote primal seas—was tacked on to Darwin and promoted by Darwin himself. Scientists passed sparks through flasks of chemicals hoped to represent the primal seas, and molecules of compounds usually found in living things were discovered afterward. This was exceedingly thin evidence, but it pointed in the desired direction, and was accepted.

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. Evolutionists today have it in spades. Just as the church once reacted punitively to Galileo for abandoning the party line, so do ideological evolutionists to those who do not accept the dogma of evolutionary political correctness.

Here are some questions about the alleged accidental formation of life: (1) Do we actually know, as distinct from hope, suspect, speculate, or pray, of what the primeval seas consisted? (2) Do we actually know what sort of sea or seas would be necessary to engender life in the time believed available? (3) Has the accidental creation of life been repeated in the laboratory? (4) Can it mathematically be shown possible without making highly questionable assumptions? And (5) If the answers to the foregoing are “no,” would it not be reasonable to regard the idea of chance abiogenesis as pure speculation?
 
Old 03-22-2013, 08:05 AM
 
40,171 posts, read 24,385,908 times
Reputation: 12661
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Scientists have tied Darwinism to the beginning of life. Like or not, it has became a part of evolutionary theory because of evolutionists and cannot be seperated into distinct catagories. Darwin himself taught that they were intertwined. In other words, you cannot pick and choose what to believe because it doesn't fit you preconceived notions.

When the Origin of Species appeared in 1859, it offered a plausible and rational alternative to God Did It. Evidence in its favor existed. Selective breeding of animals greatly changed them. That this might have occurred by natural selection made sense.

But natural selection did not explain where life came from in the first place. The notion of abiogenesis—that life began by accident in remote primal seas—was tacked on to Darwin and promoted by Darwin himself. Scientists passed sparks through flasks of chemicals hoped to represent the primal seas, and molecules of compounds usually found in living things were discovered afterward. This was exceedingly thin evidence, but it pointed in the desired direction, and was accepted.

Scientific inquiry is separated from ideological rigidity by a willingness to entertain questions and admit doubt. The giveaway of ideology is emotional hostility to skeptics. Evolutionists today have it in spades. Just as the church once reacted punitively to Galileo for abandoning the party line, so do ideological evolutionists to those who do not accept the dogma of evolutionary political correctness.

Here are some questions about the alleged accidental formation of life: (1) Do we actually know, as distinct from hope, suspect, speculate, or pray, of what the primeval seas consisted? (2) Do we actually know what sort of sea or seas would be necessary to engender life in the time believed available? (3) Has the accidental creation of life been repeated in the laboratory? (4) Can it mathematically be shown possible without making highly questionable assumptions? And (5) If the answers to the foregoing are “no,” would it not be reasonable to regard the idea of chance abiogenesis as pure speculation?
Origin of Species doesn't address abiogenesis at all. Have you read it?

When Darwin refers to "origin", he's not referring to the origin of man, he's referring to the process of speciation, how species develop, evolution. He never even addresses abiogenesis. He certainly didn't promote it or teach it, at all.

Your entire post is premised and falsehoods.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 08:07 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,285,422 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Scientists have tied Darwinism to the beginning of life.
Then they, like you, are wrong. The origin of the first replicator and the process of replication + Evolution are two entirely different things. It is called Natural Selection for a reason... it presupposes that there IS something to select. Just like Ballistics presupposes there is something to project.

If you and these nameless uncited scientists of yours want to conflate the two subjects then so be it. You could not be more wrong however, nor is abiogenisis what this thread is about.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Richardson, TX
8,701 posts, read 11,846,753 times
Reputation: 3727
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Scientists have tied Darwinism to the beginning of life.
No, that is what creationists do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top