Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 241 of 298 (271887)
12-23-2005 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by FliesOnly
12-20-2005 7:58 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
Once again, like evos do all the time, you resort to theological arguments to try counter the concept of Intelligent Design. Suffice to say, you cannot muster good science arguments, and your theological arguments are very weak.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by FliesOnly, posted 12-20-2005 7:58 AM FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ReverendDG, posted 12-23-2005 3:47 AM randman has not replied
 Message 255 by FliesOnly, posted 12-23-2005 9:28 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 242 of 298 (271889)
12-23-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by robinrohan
12-23-2005 12:01 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
robin, forgive me if I take the opinions of respected evos in this field like Richardson, and respected creationists such as the ones that originally pointed this out to me, more than your opinion that somehow I, Richardson and many others are just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by robinrohan, posted 12-23-2005 12:01 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by robinrohan, posted 12-23-2005 12:27 AM randman has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 298 (271890)
12-23-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by randman
12-23-2005 12:23 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
It doesn't matter. Haeckel substituted dogs for humans. He couldn't get the humans. But they were almost identical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:23 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:25 AM robinrohan has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 244 of 298 (271895)
12-23-2005 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
12-23-2005 12:07 AM


Re: from zero to Haeckel in four posts
randman writes:
Heck, even Richardson admitted Haeckel was believed, relied upon, and that his depictions were fraudulent. There is no debating this, except with people like you that would swear the sky was orange if you thought it would help protect your "faith" (ToE).
Your Haeckel argument was pretty thoroughly debunked in Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up..... Richardson was referring to the use of Haeckel's work in embryology, and you have misconstrued that as use to provide evidence for ToE.
The dishonesty of creationist arguments makes a far stronger case against God than evolution could ever do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:07 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 12-23-2005 12:56 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 246 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:20 AM nwr has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 245 of 298 (271900)
12-23-2005 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
12-23-2005 12:44 AM


Re: from zero to Haeckel in four posts
Isn't that hairsplitting? A tad disingenuous? Even the idea that embryos across species resemble each other is implicit "proof" for the ToE.
I haven't followed this whole argument by any means, but I certainly remember when the Biogenetic Law was gospel, and ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny was drummed into my generation in high school, and yes I know this has sort of been corrected but embryological similarities are STILL considered one of the evidences for the ToE.
Yaro posted the following link to this fascinating "star-nosed" mole. I'd call it the flower-nosed mole myself I think.
Page not found | Natural History Magazine
The raised patches of Eimer’s organs on the nose of an adult coast mole, left, resemble the swellings of the snout of a star-nosed mole embryo, right. This suggests that the star-nosed mole evolved from an ancestor whose snout looked like that of the coast mole.
Not exactly being used to prove the ToE, merely being taken for granted as proved.
This message has been edited by Faith, 12-23-2005 01:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 12-23-2005 12:44 AM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:23 AM Faith has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 246 of 298 (271903)
12-23-2005 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by nwr
12-23-2005 12:44 AM


nwr, you are just ignorant here
Your Haeckel argument was pretty thoroughly debunked in Thread Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up..... Richardson was referring to the use of Haeckel's work in embryology
That's right, embryology within the context of how embryology relates to evolution. The claim of a phylotypic stage is an argument used in support of evolution. I would think you know that, but maybe you are incapable of accepting facts if they disagree with your belief system.
I have seen similar mentalities, such as your's, in religious cults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by nwr, posted 12-23-2005 12:44 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by nwr, posted 12-23-2005 9:38 AM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 247 of 298 (271905)
12-23-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
12-23-2005 12:56 AM


Re: from zero to Haeckel in four posts
Faith, what we have here is a clear case of facts, historical and present facts, that are embarrasing for evos. Evos or many of them, believing what they do as a result of indoctrination not education, can sometimes find themselves in a position where they just cannot accept facts if they disagree with evolution.
I think nwr actually is probably incapable of realizing Richardson's comments on Haeckel and embryology were within a context of ToE. Accepting that fact would threaten his belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 12-23-2005 12:56 AM Faith has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 248 of 298 (271906)
12-23-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by robinrohan
12-23-2005 12:27 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
Robinrohan, you believe they were "almost identical" and thet "it doesn't matter", but the facts say otherwise, and he actually doctored every emrbyo at the "tailbud" stage but one, and doctored many other aspects of the drawings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by robinrohan, posted 12-23-2005 12:27 AM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by ReverendDG, posted 12-23-2005 3:50 AM randman has not replied
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-23-2005 11:52 AM randman has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 249 of 298 (271921)
12-23-2005 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by randman
12-23-2005 12:20 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
Once again, like evos do all the time, you resort to theological arguments to try counter the concept of Intelligent Design. Suffice to say, you cannot muster good science arguments, and your theological arguments are very weak.
Well what do you expect? ID doesn't provide any arguments to begin with, at least nothing observable or recordable, most of ID is a cop-out "it couldn't be natural its too conplex, It must have been some designer" - since the designer would get questioned about who designed the designer ad nausum they just decided it was god - which is not science!
so it comes down to arguing on theological basis,since IDists can invoke their god figure

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:20 AM randman has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 250 of 298 (271922)
12-23-2005 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by randman
12-23-2005 1:25 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
Robinrohan, you believe they were "almost identical" and thet "it doesn't matter", but the facts say otherwise, and he actually doctored every emrbyo at the "tailbud" stage but one, and doctored many other aspects of the drawings.
Oh come on Randman stop with the haeckel crap people don't care! what does this have to do with the thread?!
it makes me wish i could post image macros, like the one of the guy holding his head in pained annoyance with the caption "Not this Sh*T Again!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 1:25 AM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 251 of 298 (271942)
12-23-2005 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
12-23-2005 12:07 AM


appeal to authority
Richardson is an expert in this field and refers to commonly accepted knowledge within that field and so does not substantiate that point as much as could be done.
You claim he was wrong without any evidence at all.
No, I don't claim he was wrong. I am claiming that he did not say what you said he said. I said he claimed that Haeckel had significant influence. You said he claimed that scientists rely on Haeckel. 'Significant influence' is a very general non-specific term. Was Haeckel's fraudulent work relied on by scientists? Maybe, but I'm yet to see it.
I don't appeal to authority alone. On something like this, I was forced to appeal to Richardson because guys like you are so incredibly ignorant of this area, even though you have a very strong and dogmatic opinion, that I am forced to show you how even someone I disagree with, agrees with me on this. This is a basic fact within the debate. You guys are just trying to squirm your way out of admitting the obvious.
The point is, you refer to the opinion of authority, not just their findings. For example, Wilson, Watson and Richardson.
Heck, even Richardson admitted Haeckel was believed, relied upon, and that his depictions were fraudulent.
You claim Richardson said Haeckel was relied upon, and that scientists relied on Haeckel's fraudulent work for 125 years. This doesn't seem to be Richardson's opinion, but your interpretation of his opinion.
There is no debating this, except with people like you that would swear the sky was orange if you thought it would help protect your "faith" (ToE).
The on-topic part was your reliance on appealing to the opinions of a small selection of scientists and assuming that their opinion is right on the subject and their opinion is representative.
Not only was I not defending the ToE, I wasn't even discussing it. Your the one that seems to think the actions of a few unscruplous indidviduals has some kind of effect on an explantory framework./
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 23-December-2005 12:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:07 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 252 of 298 (271949)
12-23-2005 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by randman
12-22-2005 11:56 PM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
randman writes:
Can you not read or something? Did Jerry Coyne use the phrase "spontaneous generation" or not, to refer to abiogenesis?
Can *you* not read or something? The word "abiogenesis" doesn't even appear in the article. See Phat's Message 205 again to refresh your memory.
I do not know what decisions go into the production of a children's encyclopaedia. I can only guess that the term "abiogenesis" was deemed overly technical. The way modern scientists use the terms "abiogenesis" and "spontaneous generation" is correctly captured in the Wikipedia definition.
You owe me an apology here, imo!
Everybody owes you an apology in your opinion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by randman, posted 12-22-2005 11:56 PM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 253 of 298 (271951)
12-23-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by randman
12-23-2005 12:01 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
randman writes:
I don't recall Watson and Wilson making any comments about mutation and randomness.
Then you need to listen again. And as far as this thread, randomness and mutations has a lot to do with the OP.
I think you need to admit when you're wrong. I have the program TiVo'd, I listened to it very carefully for portions that touched on your claims, I earlier transcribed portions of it, and Watson and Wilson do not make any comments about mutation and randomness in the first 30 minutes. There's no mention of random mutations, no mention of the origin of life, no use of the word "autonomously".
It makes sense that the discussion didn't touch on these topics. They were discussing Darwin, who worked on evolution, not abiogenesis, and who didn't have any knowledge of the workings of heredity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:01 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 254 of 298 (271956)
12-23-2005 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by randman
12-23-2005 12:18 AM


Re: HISTORICALLY YES, Darwinism = No God
randman writes:
That's not entirely accurate. I believe evolution leads to atheism for a great many prominent evos, such as Wilson, and that evos latched onto Darwin, in part, because of that appeal.
Some might, some might not. Myself and Jar are examples of God-believing evos.
randman writes:
percy writes:
To Wilson and Watson the central significance of evolution is socio-cultural, not scientific. They are not making scientific statements.
That's just bull crap. They are scientists and asked to refer to the scientific significance of Darwin.
This is transcribed from the program:
Rose:Let me just start, tell me, put Darwin in perspective for us. When you think of the great scientific and intellectual contributions to humankind, what was the achievement of Charles Darwin?
So we can see that Rose *did not* ask about Darwin's scientific achievement, but more broadly his achievement. And Wilson replies:
Wilson:The achievement was not to present the idea of evolution, but to present the idea of evolution by random genetic change that was then sorted out by natural selection, by the environment. He had the origin of diversity of life as we know it on earth by autonomy, independent of any outside force. And this then put hamnity in a wholly different light, namely as potentially having arisen by this uncontrolled and undesigned process on our own on this planet independently.
So Wilson names a scientific achievement and a socio-cultural achievement.
By the way, you can see in the above quote where your error in thinking they were discussing the origin of life comes from. He said the "origin of diversity of life", and you must have thought he said, "origin of life." We also find where you probably thought the word "autonomously" was used, since Wilson uses the word "autonomy". Sorry I didn't pick this up the first time I watched the show, but you said they used it when discussing the origin of life, which of course they never did.
The fact they perhaps can't see straight enough to know the difference between science and social and religious issues is indicative of many evos, and that's the whole point of the thread.
I think you just like to conclude that anyone who's not you is stupid. Obviously Watson and Wilson are aware of the distinction between science and religion. A good part of the discussion was devoted to it.
randman writes:
percy writes:
You deny the status of Christianity to any Christian who professes a view different than your own.
Well, this is not Christmas cheer, but you are just being a flat out liar here, Percy.
Ah, I see. When you see something a certain way, you're an astute judge of the human condition. When someone else see's something a different certain way, they're lying.
I questioned jar, not because he differed from me, but because of the way he inserts the claim he was "a Christian" all the time on science threads when there is no reason to do so...
Because your scientific beliefs are rooted in fundamentalist orthodoxy, it seems an important point that not all Christians believe as you do, and that not all Christians reach the same conclusions you do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:18 AM randman has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 255 of 298 (271966)
12-23-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 241 by randman
12-23-2005 12:20 AM


Re: What the evolutionary explanation is....
randman writes:
Once again, like evos do all the time, you resort to theological arguments to try counter the concept of Intelligent Design.
What total nonsense randman. I did not resort to theological arguments. I asked you to answer some basic questions. You are the one putting forth theological arguments randman. What do you think ID is? It most certainly is not scientific, seeing as how it admittedly claims that some intelligent being created things. That sounds like a theological argument to me randman . how do you see it?
Actually, here's what I wrote:
FliesOnly in post 200 writes:
. Basically, randman, what I'm after is where do you draw the line? What is designed and what is not? How can you tell?
Now, to my eyes, I did not put forth any sort or argument. I asked questions.
Here's what you said in post 196:
randman in post 196 writes:
These guys think that the evidence suggests no Designer, but imo, their opinion is assumption-based, not fact-based, whereas Behe is more fact-based.
Behe presented facts? Well a Federal judge saw it another way. But still I gave you the opportunity to present us with these "facts", and instead you did your typical dodge and accused me of something I most certainly did not do...namely, presenting theological arguments. You do this all the time randman. You seem to ignore whatever is written and instead resort to personal attacks and then somehow relate it all back to Haeckel.
Haeckel this, Haeckel that, Haeckel another thing. We could be in a thread discussing why we don’t like head-cheese, or why puppies are so damned cute, and you’d fucking bring up Haeckel and blame him for one thing or another completely unrelated to the topic on hand.
Puppies are cute:
“randman replies with: Personally I think kittens are cuter than puppies . but we’ll never know the truth cuz the bastard Haeckel lied about embryos 125 years ago . damm him!”
It’s getting really really old randman. Let it go . please. Or at least limit it to the relative threads and/or in response to specific questions.
Anyway, back to the topic. It comes down to this; Can you or can you not supply us with these facts that Behe (or anyone else for that matter) puts forth to support an intelligent designer? It's a simple request randman. Will these facts be something that can be tested? Will we be able to conduct experiments that will show support of these facts? Will the tests be repeatable? You know what I mean randman...will these great and wonderful facts be supported in any way by the scientific method?
randman writes:
Suffice to say, you cannot muster good science arguments, and your theological arguments are very weak.
Very good randman...you're correct, I cannot muster good scientific arguments to support ID because none exist. There are however, copious amounts of scientific evidence in support of the ToE. And I put forth NO theological arguments.
Wait . are you asking me to provide scientific arguments against ID? Well, since a great deal of ID follows right along with the ToE, up until we get to some arbitrary, constantly shifting, non-definable magic point (beyond which we should look no further because only God could have done it), well that is something science cannot completely eliminate. We do not address Devine concepts. We cannot disprove God, nor do we care to, nor do we attempt to. What we can (and do) do, is find natural explanations for natural phenomenon that do not require the “Goddidit” answer.
For example: Behe claims that the bacterium flagella could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Behe claims that our immune system could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Behe claims that our blood clotting system could not have evolved. Science has shown how it could. Here’s what you need to understand randman. We certainly cannot prove with 100% certainty that our hypotheses about how the above mentioned systems could have evolved are correct. No one knows how it truly happened. But what science has shown is how it could have happened . that there’s no need to invoke an intelligent designer. We have not yet reached that point beyond which we cannot continue to ask questions, design and conduct experiments and find scientifically plausible explanations for what we observe. I doubt we ever will.
Yet that is what you are asking us to do. You want us to stop looking, to stop asking, to stop testing, and to instead just blindly accept that the answers cannot be known because they are the work of God. Wow! And what's even more disturbing, is that you want this explanation to be viewed a scientifically valid. And you want this taught to our children as valid science...despite a complete inability and/or desire to in anyway provide us with scientific explanations.
Here's how I see randman, the teacher, in front of “his” 9th grade biology class:
"Hi boys and girls. Hey, has everyone here cut themselves at one time or another? I sure you have. Well today children, we will learn why your blood clotted when you cut yourself":
Get your pencils ready...this may get a bit confusing and pretty in-depth:
God did it!"
“Wow...wasn't the neato?”
“Hey, has everyone gotten sick at one time or another? I'm sure you have. Well guess what, now we'll learn why when you got sick, you got better:
Pencils at the ready?
God did it!"
"Whew...boy that one sure was tough to explain.”
“Hey boys and girls, can all of you see me up here? I'm sure you can. Now we'll learn how your vision got so good...the best of any created animal...expect for birds...and well, squid too:
Anyway, get those pencils ready again:
God did it!"
“Man-o-man...this is pretty tough stuff! How you boys and girls holding up? If any of this seems too confusing, just raise your hand and I’ll try to explain it in even less detail, ok?”
“I see that we’re almost out of time, so let’s just cover one more topic and then you will have learnt all the biology you’ll ever need to know:
We’re gong to learn why your teacher ran out of gas on his way to work today.
Write this down, it is probably the most important thing you'll learn today. It proves beyond any doubt that the Theory of Evolution is complete crap:
It was the friggen Haeckel. That S.O.B. lied about embryos 125 years ago and as a result . I ran out of gas today! Plus, it completely disproves evolution"
“Class dismissed”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by randman, posted 12-23-2005 12:20 AM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024