Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If by “cover yourself,” you mean pretty directly summarize the opinions expressed in his many books and live debates, then. . . yeeesss?
 
benjamin1973 said:
If by “cover yourself,” you mean pretty directly summarize the opinions expressed in his many books and live debates, then. . . yeeesss?
Click to expand...
We know his stance. If he even opens the door to design he must shut it, or else he has to convert I do not think he is going to acknowledge the evidence like Antony Flew did.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You didn’t answer the question. What is the smallest change that you would call macro-evolution. And please don’t define it in terms of another equally-vague term. I want something I can scientifically test.
Click to expand...
The lab test would have to show the organism adding information, complex new and novel features and be able to utilize them fully immediately.
"
New concepts and information from molecular, developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species. Patterns and rates of evolution are much more varied than had been conceived by Darwin or the evolutionary synthesis, and physical factors of the earth’s history have had a significant, but extremely varied, impact on the evolution of life."

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Towards a new evolutionary synthesis - PubMed

New concepts and information from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record of all groups of organisms, need to be integrated into an expanded evolutionary synthesis. These fields of study show that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
 
buffalo said:
40.png
benjamin1973:
If by “cover yourself,” you mean pretty directly summarize the opinions expressed in his many books and live debates, then. . . yeeesss?
Click to expand...
We know his stance.
Click to expand...
Most of us do. But even when he explains his position in a video, clearly and concisely, in Engish, in layman’s terms, backing up almost everything he has ever spoken about or written about on the subject, you misinterpret it.

It’s not credible.
 
buffalo said:
We know his stance. If he even opens the door to design he must shut it, or else he has to convert I do not think he is going to acknowledge the evidence like Antony Flew did.
Click to expand...
When I read the brief part where you said he was open to ID, here’s what I thought. Knowing he’s an atheist that tries using a philosophy that regards evolution as disproving God, I knew he wasn’t going to be saying ID is true. Looking at the question, I recognized it was a “Imagine ID is true, how could it happen?” as opposed to, “Do you think ID is true and how did it happen?” The difference between the former and the latter is that the former doesn’t require him to agree with ID. It’s a hypothetical “imagine if” situation. So his answer was based with him hypothetically agreeing with ID even though his stance as a whole is against ID. A follow up question of “Do you think what you just said is likely?” would most likely have been answered with a “No.” I may not agree with Dawkins’ philosophy or care to investigate it much beyond this thread, but I will still disagree with people that misinterpret his statements.
buffalo said:
The lab test would have to show the organism adding information, complex new and novel features and be able to utilize them fully immediately.
Click to expand...
This would be in the past already, but would the change of a feature in a bacteria from being a pump to being a means of movement count?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You didn’t answer the question. What is the smallest change that you would call macro-evolution. And please don’t define it in terms of another equally-vague term. I want something I can scientifically test.
Click to expand...
The lab test would have to show the organism adding information, complex new and novel features and be able to utilize them fully immediately.
Click to expand...
It is no wonder that you reject evolution. You don’t even know what it says. What you have described is not what evolution claims.
 
mVitus said:
When I read the brief part where you said he was open to ID, here’s what I thought. Knowing he’s an atheist that tries using a philosophy that regards evolution as disproving God, I knew he wasn’t going to be saying ID is true. Looking at the question, I recognized it was a “Imagine ID is true, how could it happen?” as opposed to, “Do you think ID is true and how did it happen?” The difference between the former and the latter is that the former doesn’t require him to agree with ID. It’s a hypothetical “imagine if” situation. So his answer was based with him hypothetically agreeing with ID even though his stance as a whole is against ID. A follow up question of “Do you think what you just said is likely?” would most likely have been answered with a “No.” I may not agree with Dawkins’ philosophy or care to investigate it much beyond this thread, but I will still disagree with people that misinterpret his statements.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget it was Dawkins who said “The beauty of biology, really, is the illusion of design,”

and

Dawkins wrote, “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

and

"We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.”
 
Last edited:
Yeah.

You know, buffalo writes with coherent sentences, which means his IQ isn’t that low. It leads me to the conclusion that he’s trolling. I always feel like he’s about one post away from shouting “FALSE NEWS!”

It’s like the truth, even the truth of what actually is said, doesn’t matter-- because evolution vs. ID isn’t about actually uncovering the truth-- it’s about making sure the truth conforms with what he wants to believe. The guy can literally post a video which says the exact opposite of what he claims it says, and then claim victory as if nobody would notice.
 
benjamin1973 said:
t’s like the truth, even the truth of what actually is said, doesn’t matter-- because evolution vs. ID isn’t about actually uncovering the truth-- it’s about making sure the truth conforms with what he wants to believe. The guy can literally post a video which says the exact opposite of what he claims it says, and then claim victory as if nobody would notice.
Click to expand...
I can just as well substitute your name in the above.

You apparently missed the entire point of the exchange. Start back at the beginning, at take it in context.

post 589 I replied to your sarcastic question with a sarcastic response.

Oh, there’s some hidden designer. Who could it possibly be?
Ask Dawkins. He thinks they are aliens who diddit.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes, the old “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument.

I’m sorry if my tone was out of line. But at the essence, I really do feel that you are ignoring words, or twisting them, in a desperate bid to find anything to say against evolution at all. Whether you’re doing that on purpose or subconsciously I cannot say for sure, but the way in which you keep doubling down on this video clip makes me think that it’s probably deliberate.

This is quite confounding to me, that a Christian could look to deliberately cloud the truth in order to support the God of Truth.
 
Did you catch the word - diddit? (like so often, your side says God diddit)
 
There really aren’t sides to this issue, except perhaps the side of education vs. the side of willful ignorance of facts.

EVEN IF you believe that essential features of evolutionary theory are wrong, perhaps abiogenesis. EVEN IF you believe that God has set up species the way He intended them. Even in those cases, evolutionary science is so clearly science that it really takes a gargantuan misunderstanding of both science AND the ToE to deny that it is scientific. Like. . . and epic level of refusal to get even basic principles.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Ah, yes, the old “I’m rubber and you’re glue” argument.

I’m sorry if my tone was out of line. But at the essence, I really do feel that you are ignoring words, or twisting them, in a desperate bid to find anything to say against evolution at all. Whether you’re doing that on purpose or subconsciously I cannot say for sure, but the way in which you keep doubling down on this video clip makes me think that it’s probably deliberate.

This is quite confounding to me, that a Christian could look to deliberately cloud the truth in order to support the God of Truth.
Click to expand...
I know some of this hurts since your side reveres this guy so much. For him to even say what he said has you unglued.

Let’s revisit:

Dawkins did or did not say - biology has the illusion of design?
 
Not only do I not revere Dawkins, I don’t even like him. I find his approach to dealing with religious people condescending and more likely to unite religious folk against atheism than in opening up the door for critical thinking.

But I know what he thinks, because he’s quite unambiguous in expressing himself. You really need to stop quote-mining from religious sites, and take the time to understand things.
 
Again, I can link literally thousands of observations, predictions and confirmations, and you can say “La la la la.” You can pretend that the many peer-reviewed scientific articles, the many lab experiments, the many confirmed predictions about fossil to be found in different strata in different parts of the world, and so on do not exist. If that’s what you want to do, have at it.

But my position is also a warning: The Universe, if created by God, is full of information about God’s will and even His plan for us. By deliberately ignoring studies of the Universe, you are turning your shoulder on Creation. This is a silly position to take-- you should embrace the study of the Universe, as an effort to reveal in more detail the Glory of God.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Not only do I not revere Dawkins, I don’t even like him. I find his approach to dealing with religious people condescending and more likely to unite religious folk against atheism than in opening up the door for critical thinking.

But I know what he thinks, because he’s quite unambiguous in expressing himself. You really need to stop quote-mining from religious sites, and take the time to understand things.
Click to expand...
Call me really surprised.

These quotes are from his own book. They are undeniable. When Stein corners him in the video, he

What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution?
Prof Dawkins: Well it could come about in the following way. It could be that, eh, at some earlier time somewhere in the universe a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very, high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Ehm, now, that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility and I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

I, of almost anyone on this forum quote from religious sites the least. Go back over my long history here and you will see my sources are well known science cites. (who usually take evolution for granted)

Dawkins kicks the can down the road. He has to deal with the emerging evidence, but still can wiggle out, by saying that the higher designing intelligence has to have evolved. Quite silly really…
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Again, I can link literally thousands of observations, predictions and confirmations, and you can say “La la la la.” You can pretend that the many peer-reviewed scientific articles, the many lab experiments, the many confirmed predictions about fossil to be found in different strata in different parts of the world, and so on do not exist. If that’s what you want to do, have at it.
Click to expand...
Do you really think I have not studied or been challenged in the past by these?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Give me the top three that you believe are the clinchers.

Evolution is now predictable?

Yes, I agree the universe is full of information about God’s will…etc

We are looking at the same evidence. It is man’s interpretation that is the weak link. I love the correctly reasoned study of the universe. It has God’s signature all over it. It definitely reveals the glory of God.
 
Truly epic.

Thanks for your posts. You’ve provided me with some real insight into your position, and into that of proponents of Intelligent Design. While it’s been somewhat frustrating, I can definitely say that I’ve learned something here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top