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.
Science in the past 150 years has long surpassed Darwin. Somehow, it seems that calling someone a Darwinist is saying you believe that person's scientific understand is 150 years out of date.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. The belief is very much current.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. The belief is very much current.
Well, of course the basic concept is still current. Basic evolution is one of the scientific theories that has the most verified research behind it. Anyone with an understanding of the science would be highly unlikely to refer to Darwinism.
Well, of course the basic concept is still current. Basic evolution is one of the scientific theories that has the most verified research behind it. Anyone with an understanding of the science would be highly unlikely to refer to Darwinism.
In all due respect, theories do not equate facts. Sometimes they are just wishful thinking. What is the argument based on anyway? cranial capacity? nature vs. nurture? (neanderthal) genes?
Again, with all due respect, if you don't mind I'd like to return to the topic of this thread.
In all due respect, theories do not equate facts. Sometimes they are just wishful thinking. What is the argument based on anyway? cranial capacity? nature vs. nurture? (neanderthal) genes?
Again, with all due respect, if you don't mind I'd like to return to the topic of this thread.
Before leaving this topic, you need to understand that a scientific theory is not the same as a non-scientific theory. In science, the term "theory" is used to denote something that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested. It's about as close as science can get to calling something a fact.
Before leaving this topic, you need to understand that a scientific theory is not the same as a non-scientific theory. In science, the term "theory" is used to denote something that has been thoroughly reviewed and tested. It's about as close as science can get to calling something a fact.
That's a great example as to why agnosticism is a stand alone position. It's not a black and white issue no matter how much some need to draw a line in the sand in order to battle against something/anything.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. The belief is very much current.
This shows a total lack of understanding about how science works. And it virtually always works the same way. A scientist (usually) develops an hypothesis -- proposes a tentative explanation or prediction about some phenomenon. That scientist and other scientists begin collecting data to support or tear down the hypothesis. After a while, data begins to do one of two things -- either lead to something more concrete (a theory) or the hypothesis pretty much fails. If enough data is collected to generally support the hypothesis, the hypothesis or theory gains support AS THE IDEA EVOLVES.
Even when I was a geology major in college back in the 1970s, I didn't know a single professor that would have called himself a Darwinist, because many of the details of Darwin's beliefs had evolved through the work of subsequent scientists. However, all of those professors supported the concept of evolution as it was evolving. The process has been sort of a two steps forward and one step back sort of thing. Sometimes new thoughts lead somewhere, sometimes they're a dead end (like evolution).
Darwin's Origin Of Species was published before the Civil War. Think about that. In the last more than century-and-a-half, Darwin's work has been picked at and has evolved by scientists over and over. Saying that Darwin is the Father Of The Concept Of Evolution is fair. Saying that Darwin's actual work is the status of the field today is just plain stupid. And as a scientist, Charles Darwin would not expect his early thoughts on the matter to be fully accepted 162 years later.
At what locations around the globe have archeologists successfully located whale fossils? desserts? mountain ranges? where? And what method should we use to chronological date those findings?
At what locations around the globe have archeologists successfully located whale fossils? desserts? mountain ranges? where? And what method should we use to chronological date those findings?
If you believe god made the planet in six days then nothing about how rocks form will make a difference to you.
If you are interested in how your god may have done it, then learning about how rocks (in this case fossil rocks) do form. There is no reason god wouldn't show you exactly how he did it. There is absolutely no reason why he would say it happened one way and show you how he did it another way.
You can't test rocks using Carbon dating. It only works on organic material.
I'm aware of the time limitations of the different metrics, I already mention to Gabfest he was quizzing about carbon-dating which was totally inappropriate for his clsim.
Darwinist are people who subscribe to Darwin. It seems Darwin's origins of the species ranked man according to percentages of neanderthal DNA. Those with most were/are considered the most evolved.
Where did you get the outright lie? Ask yourself how much did Darwin know about Neanderthal. Did Darwin have the slightest clue about DNA, it was disordered 9ver 100 years after his book had been published.
On top of that your source that told you that also expect you to be uninformed or dumb. If Darwin was racists, he was of the kind of racist that moulded the minds of the average middle or upper class British citizen. He had most likely the same views upon races the average American did at the time, your country still had half the country with legal slavery.
And you know which groups og h9mo sapiens with the less Neathdrathals with the lowest, the people of Africa and the far East and maybe the aborigines of Australia. Are you sites claiming that they thought people of colour were the most evolved.
And Natherthahl DNA is not a sign of evolution but whom had sex with whom.
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.
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.
