Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter buffalo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
redneck22 said:
My cat dies and I bury it deep in my backyard, then I die and I’m buried above my cat. Years later evolutionary paleontologists come along, excavate the area and say “this is excellent evidence for cats evolving into humans”.

The only “evidence” the fossil record can demonstrate is Stasis and Extinction. Its a record of death not life.
Click to expand...
Since we would never make such a ludicrous conclusion today, are you saying that the human race is devolving and we are going to be more stupid in the future?
 
ready said:
I read Darwin in a special course on Darwinism and studied the idea of common ancestry. He presents us with only a theory filled with gaps…unconvincing when scrutinized. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Wow, you read Darwin? Since you are an expert, can you go ahead and give us some of those gaps? Perhaps a couple of them have been filled in the ~150 years since his book was published.

Peace

Tim
 
ready said:
I read Darwin in a special course on Darwinism and studied the idea of common ancestry. He presents us with only a theory filled with gaps…unconvincing when scrutinized. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Once again… evidence never considered is always unconvincing.

I have a degree in Anthropology in which I took: Physical Anthropology, Biology, Forensic Anthropology, Human Evolutionary Psychology, Primatology, Neuropsychology, Paleoanthropology, and the Philosophy of Science. I also took a course on Arthurian Legends, but that’s beside the point.

I studied not only Darwin, but the work of the Leakeys, Raymond Dart, and about three or four dozen other people who have had added to our understanding of evolution over the last 150 years.

I have also added evidence, in this very thread, which you have completely ignored on the basis that you read Darwin.

I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Sorry.
 
I am not an expert…but I am smart and intellectually honest. I can tell a good argument from a bad one.😃
 
Fnord said:
Haven’t most if not all of the transitory fossils been shown to be fakes? Also, do people forget about the Cambrian explosion?
Click to expand...
To expand slightly on Orogeny’s answer:

The vast majority of fossils have proved to be genuine. To put it in perspective, the number of transitional fossils that have proved to be frauds would fit on a pool table. The number of transitional fossils that have proved to be genuine would take up a swimming pool.

To put it another way, if you were to discount the majority of fossils on the basis that some have proved to be fakes, then you would have to assume that the vast majority of paintings found in the galleries of the world are also fakes.

As to whether we have forgotten the Cambrian explosion… I’m not sure what your point is there. Yes, there was a boom in the Cambrian era. A boom lasting between 5-40 million years. There was a boom in the Ordovician as well.
 
ready said:
I am not an expert…but I am smart and intellectually honest. I can tell a good argument from a bad one.😃
Click to expand...
So… you are aware that you haven’t made a good one, and that you haven’t addressed any of the arguments here, right?

Have you read any work on genetics?
 
ready said:
I am not an expert…but I am smart and intellectually honest. I can tell a good argument from a bad one.😃
Click to expand...
Just for the record: So am I, and so can I.

I think you are wrong about evolution. How will we ever get to the bottom of this? Oh, I know, by considering the evidence.
 
ready said:
I took an intermediate level course on the Darwinian Revoution at my University and earned an A in the class without agreeing with Darwin’s theory of common ancestry in the least in my final paper. I find no proof of man sharing common ancestry with apes through evolution at all.

I did, however, find that natural selection could apply to plant and animal species evolving new traits over periods of time under new and changing environmental conditions.
Click to expand...
Well over 90% of the doctoral level biologists the world over accept evolution theory to be the way species originated, including common ancestry of humans. Even the pope accepts evolution theory as the way things happened.

In your disagreement you have a lot of ground to cover.
 
walsh said:
Right on, aggiecatholic05 - nothing I have read in scientific papers and discussions explains how the Universe (and us) came about so well as ´´ In the beginning was the Word…`` , Does any other book or story opening read so well? ´´In the beginning… I don´t know the how or the when (and never met anyone who did), and I trust what our Faith tells me about the why, but now at 81, must lay my hopes on a little clarification from the only One who really knows.

James - Brazil
Click to expand...
Hi James,
Try reading The Silmarillion by JR Tolkien. It also starts at the beginning though it employs singing instead of speaking to create it’s universe.
 
A majority of doctors and students might agree upon common ancestry as being true indeed, but I stand with the Pope and those keen scholars who don’t buy into this acceptance. The Magisterium does not accept this theory as fact in the least. Some important people have misinterpreted what the Popes have said on evolution, but that doesn’t change the truth of what’s been actually said. Natural selection appears to be operant in populations over time, yes…but as I told my professor in my final paper - common ancestry is just too far fetched based on the argument that was presented to me. I am not alone with my beliefs, you see. There are good biologists and non-biologists who are not proponents of the common ancestry theory just because the common ancestry argument appears tenuous. But let’s still be friends!🙂
 
ready said:
A majority of doctors and students might agree upon common ancestry as being true indeed, but I stand with the Pope and those keen scholars who don’t buy into this acceptance. The Magisterium does not accept this theory as fact in the least. Some important people have misinterpreted what the Popes have said on evolution, but that doesn’t change the truth of what’s been actually said. Natural selection appears to be operant in populations over time, yes…but as I told my professor in my final paper - common ancestry is just too far fetched based on the argument that was presented to me. I am not alone with my beliefs, you see. There are good biologists and non-biologists who are not proponents of the common ancestry theory just because the common ancestry argument appears tenuous. But let’s still be friends!🙂
Click to expand...
Oh heck, we can very easily be friends and disagree about any number of issues.

The fact is that the theory of evolution is the very foundation of all of our biological science. It is one of the most well documented of all scientific theories.

I know that there are well educated scientists who reject the theory of evolution. However, they are in the fringes of modern science. When you critically examine the evidence supporting the theory of evolution you find more than compelling evidence.

The theory of evolution does not in any way shape of form conflict with mainstream Christian ideas. It does conflict with fundamentalist (Biblical literalism )Christian ideas.
 
A majority of doctors and students might agree upon common ancestry as being true indeed, but I stand with the Pope and those keen scholars who don’t buy into this acceptance. The Magisterium does not accept this theory as fact in the least. Some important people in the science field have misinterpreted what the Popes have said on evolution, but that doesn’t change the truth of what’s been actually said. Natural selection appears to be operant in populations over time, yes - but as I told my professor in my final paper - common ancestry is just too far fetched based on the argument that was presented to me. I am not alone with my beliefs, you see. There are good biologists and non-biologists who are not proponents of the common ancestry theory - for the reason that the common ancestry argument appears tenuous. But let’s still be friends!🙂 I don’t mean to contradict.
 
ready said:
A majority of doctors and students might agree upon common ancestry as being true indeed, but I stand with the Pope and those keen scholars who don’t buy into this acceptance.
Click to expand...
The pope has stated that evolution (common ancestry) is almost certainly the way things happened. Do you disagree?

Name those keen scholars who don’t agree with evolution theory, please.
 
The pope has not stated that common ancestry is a fact or anything near factual. I am certain of this. You are misunderstood.

Also, I have read more than just Darwin’s work. In class we also studied some paleontolgists who built on his argument of common ancestry (for example, Johannsen and his work revolving around “Lucy” the Australopithecus Apherensis (sp?)). Their argument really was not convincing. And when I watch PBS I see a continuation of their same reasoning.

I’m built to see things more broadly, I guess, than what the media and the scientific community presents to be true. I don’t mean to oppose you and the established scientific community but what am I supposed to do? Believe in something as scientific that doesn’t appear to be true to me based on what I already reasonably know? I am open to truth, for sure. But not false assumptions built on a profligate theory.😉
 
cerad said:
Hi James,
Try reading The Silmarillion by JR Tolkien. It also starts at the beginning though it employs singing instead of speaking to create it’s universe.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that how God creates in The Magician’s Nephew?
 
StAnastasia said:
Isn’t that how God creates in The Magician’s Nephew?
Click to expand...

Yes. Aslan creates by song, whereas the Ainur “sub-create” by song. I think what they do is “subcreate”; see the Ainulindalë for the details 🙂 - or even this:​

 
I am pleased to read all the harmonics of “The Word” in other literary pieces, and can contribute that as far as I know, other beliefs than the christianist maintain that the world was spoken or sung into existance. My own Mentor used to sign his letters “Man is a Song,” that stemming from his own experiential understanding and use of vibratory frequencies.

But (back to the thread in some form) after hearing all the stuff on here about evolution related arguments, can somone explain to me why Darwinism is such an anathema to some when the man himself was a trained cleric and acknowledged God as the Creator even unto the last line of Origin of Species? It seems that there is a lot on here, as far as I can see, that insists that the Universe is God’s “train set” and I just don’t see the need for Divine intervention in that way. I also don’t see that everything working as a continuum makes God any less. In fact, no intervention would seem to me to be evidence of the profundity of an original creation as distinct from something that needs constant adjustment. It would also seem more consitent with the Etrnality of God, as Eternality has no component of duration. So can someone clearly and concisely p(name removed by moderator)oint for me what the fuss is about? Or shall I go start another thread?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top