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 03-22-2013, 09:05 AM
 
32,448 posts, read 16,619,113 times
Reputation: 17457

Advertisements

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.
He did no such thing. Quite the contrary, in fact - he went to great lengths to separate the two. Damn, don't you guys read?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwin
It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life. Who can explain what is the essence of the attraction of gravity? No one now objects to following out the results consequent on this unknown element of attraction; notwithstanding that Leibnitz formerly accused Newton of introducing “occult qualities and miracles into philosophy”
That's right out of The Origin of Species, btw.

You might as well insist we throw heliocentrism out because Galileo couldn't tell what created the solar system.

 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,167,151 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
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.
Never said the origin of Species addressed the claim. Matter of fact, I thought I made it clear that it did not.

What I said was from the beginning of evolutionary belief the evolutionists have used evolution to explain the beginning of life.

Until they are challenged. Then it becomes: "We don't address abiogenesis at all." lols.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:13 AM
 
32,448 posts, read 16,619,113 times
Reputation: 17457
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
Wow, powerful post. People are going to have a tough time refuting that.
It's just Bishop Paley, but more verbose. GnT is reduced to "it looks designed to me, hence it must be designed." He's not dumb, his thinking is just very undisciplined. Or he's just getting a kick out of being contrarian - he's been arguing against the moon landings on this forum as well.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,167,151 times
Reputation: 826
One place where evolutionism breaks down is in human reproduction. All through evolutionism runs the idea of maximizing reproduction. Women have big breasts to attract men so that they can make more babies. Men are big and strong so that they can get the women and make more or better babies. People cooperate in bands so they can stay alive and make more babies. On and on.

Yet now we have whole societies which by choice are not having babies. Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, Germany and so on are breeding at below replacement. In Mexico the birth rate falls like a rock, even though nutrition has improved and health is better. The drop is easily explained in human terms. Why do you, the reader, not want fifteen children? The same answers apply in Mexico as in the United States.

Interestingly, the drop in procreation is steepest among the most intelligent , educated,and wealthy—that is, the people evolutionists claim should be breeding. There is no evolutionary explanation. When I ask, I encounter silence or vague mumblings about how there must be some mutation or, well, something.

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. That's what we get from evolutioinsts.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:17 AM
 
32,448 posts, read 16,619,113 times
Reputation: 17457
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Never said the origin of Species addressed the claim. Matter of fact, I thought I made it clear that it did not.
I think this is where you provide a citation for Darwin "teaching" that the beginning of life is "intertwined" with the ToE.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:17 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,279,657 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
What I said was from the beginning of evolutionary belief the evolutionists have used evolution to explain the beginning of life.
None that I have ever read, met or spoken with do this. They are well aware of the differences between the two subjects even if you are not. I have no doubt you can find 1 or 2 anecdotal citations of scientists espousing the same nonsense errors as you do... but the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

Perhaps however you could start citing who these people are and what they said.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:19 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,167,151 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
I think this is where you provide a citation for Darwin "teaching" that the beginning of life is "intertwined" with the ToE.
My bad.

I didn't explain it clearly enough. Easy to misunderstand my meaning.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Columbus, OH
3,039 posts, read 2,167,151 times
Reputation: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
None that I have ever read, met or spoken with do this. They are well aware of the differences between the two subjects even if you are not. I have no doubt you can find 1 or 2 anecdotal citations of scientists espousing the same nonsense errors as you do... but the plural of anecdote is not evidence.

Perhaps however you could start citing who these people are and what they said.

I said "from the beginning". Were you around in 1859?

And I'm not allowed to use anecdotal evidence even though you do? lols.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:21 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,279,657 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
One place where evolutionism breaks down is in human reproduction. All through evolutionism runs the idea of maximizing reproduction.
False. Making things up about Evolution and then attacking that is called "Straw Man".

Evolution is not about maximizing reproduction at all. Maximizing it is just ONE strategy. Minimizing it is ANOTHER strategy. Both work. Many animals pump out 1000s even millions of off spring in a life time. While many others have just 1.

So your "argument" is wrong from the base premise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
Yet now we have whole societies which by choice are not having babies.
This not only does not negate Evolution... it has little to do with it at all. Reproduction is not the only place where we choose to over come the state Evolution has brought us too. Whether you choose not to reproduce... or whether you take medicine to over come and infection.... or you cook your food.... or you use electrical light to see at night.... we are over coming by choice the fruits of Evolution.
 
Old 03-22-2013, 09:23 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,279,657 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRules View Post
I said "from the beginning". Were you around in 1859?

And I'm not allowed to use anecdotal evidence even though you do? lols.
You havent provided ANY evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. I see no citations of references in your claims here. You are just asserting people have said things and leaving it at that.

Also you might want to look up anecdotal because no evidence or arguments I have presented so far has been such... despite you saying the above. I was, in fact, explaining why anecdotal evidence is useless here given the experience of many others here is the direct opposite of your (alleged and likely fabricated) experiences.
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