Originally posted by dj2becker🙄🙄
Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. ...[text shortened]... position. This is deception by omission.
refer to:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here.
Are you insinuating that I took the phrase "decent with modification" from talkorigins? If so then I will take this opportunity to reveal what to you is likely a startling piece of information:
Most of us do not plagerize. In fact, most of us can actually think independent of a propaganda site. "Descent with modification" is one standard textbook definition of evolution. I learned it by taking a science class (no not the kind your mom's been ordering for you through the mail, dj2).
There is a creation-evolution controversy (a major one at that) precisely because evolution means far more than what TO leads its readers to believe here. The controversy exists because evolution—the full-fledged manifestation of evolution (including Neo-Darwinian macro-evolution)—is for many a metaphysical belief that elevates the philosophy of materialistic naturalism (hailing purely natural laws and processes, including time and chance, as our “creators&rdquo😉, and dismissing God (a Creator with purpose) as an irrelevant product of superstition.
There are a few quacks out there yes, but shouldn't you reject this 0.000001% of the scientific community by Dj2's Argument from Probability? Besides, all science hypothesizes natural explanations for natural phenomena. Consider scientific theories of: the formation of a star, electricity, reproduction, the behavior of gases, the motion of the planets, the spread of disease, the essence of light, optics, the structure of cells, flight, neurology, fluid dynamics.
These are just a tiny subsample of all types of scientific theories. Nevertheless, each one is based upon the assumption that there are natural explainations for natural processes. If you reject evolution then you should reject every single scientific theory.
After all, why is it that so many people are offended by the theory of evolution to the point of fiercely opposing it? Why is it that emotions run so high and intellectual battles persist? Because of ignorance?
Yes. That and brainwashing.
Although there will always be uninformed people on both sides of any dispute, a great many well-educated people in science, mathematics and other disciplines are among those who disagree adamantly with the precepts of evolution.
By "great many" you mean a few hundred? Because that's really what you have among scientists if that many.
Evolution is offensive because it is bad science and is as equally bad a metaphysic—in short, on close examination, evolution fails on all counts.
Do you have any clue how offensive the heliocentric model of the solar system was? How about how offensive the Kepler's elliptical planetary orbits were? A scientific model should not be judged based upon how much it inflates some people's egos or comforts others insecurities. If you need to feel that the whole universe was designed for you and that you are the apex of it then so be it. Your vanity does not change the fact that you and chimpanzees descended from from a common species.
Despite all of this, TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of ‘religion versus science’—‘emotion versus reason.’
Back onto talkorigins again? Where did this urge to berate that website come from? By the way, it is a war of religion vs. science, emotion vs. reason. It seems the lot of science to be continually nipped at the heels by religion. Over the last 500 years though science has been winning.
This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter well enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission.
Conspiracy theories? Is that what you've got? Sheesh. You are desperate.
refer to:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Oh, I see. Until now I thought you had come up with all this blatherskeit by yourself. Should have known.
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe answer is I don't regard talking to a fanatic who has reached an irreversible conclusion regardless of the merits of the evidence, as being a fruitful way to spend my time. So bugger off.
I don't find a definate answer to my question.
Hmm. Ok. Fine. Let me try again.
Do you regard macroevolution to be a fact?
I would say that evolution is most definitely a scientific fact. Within biology it is well established. But I think the founder of this board is questioning whether this scientific fact should be accepted as true and as the only reasonable explanation. So, to drive home my point, evolution is a current fact within science, but not necessarily true outside of that domain.
Originally posted by telerionDon't you mean gravitation and (say) the Newtonian law of gravitation?
Descent with modification is an empirical fact. Thus evolution is a fact.
You need to distinguish between evolution and the "theory of evolution." It's analogous to distinguishing between gravity and "gravitational theory."
Gravity refers specifically to the attractive force between the Earth and other masses in the universe ...
😀
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo i do not mean that. Evolution refers to "descent with modification through time." It is a fact, just as gravity is a fact (using dj2's idea of fact). We have a ton of empirical evidence demonstrating that this occurs. "Gravitational theory" as far I know it can actually be seperated into three different views depending on the scale. For middle range Newton's theory works. For very large scales, we use the theory of relativity which sort of augments Newton's theory. On very tiny scales we use quantum mechanics. As of yet the theory of gravity is not really unified.
Don't you mean gravitation and (say) the Newtonian law of gravitation?
Gravity refers specifically to the attractive force between the Earth and other masses in the universe ...
😀
In my post, I'm distinguishing between evolution the fact and evolution the theory. I use gravity as an analogy (gravity is an empirical fact and also there are theories of how gravity affects masses)
I am not a physicist though, so please correct my errors everyone where I am mistaken.
Edit: Just a minor thing, but it's not only the earth and other masses. If I'm not mistaken, it's the attractive force between any two masses.
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot so ! The controversy is a war by religious nuts like you against knowlege.
Clearly there would not be a creation-evolution controversy if it were universally agreed and adhered to that evolution meant solely “a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time.” There is a creation-evolution contr ...[text shortened]... y omission.
refer to:http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
Originally posted by Alpha10You have a right to your opinion, of course. But I refuse to give the opinion of creationists (if that's what you're advocating) any respect. I do not respect the opinion of neo-Nazis, or advocates for slavery, why should I be expected to give any respect to the opinions of a creationist? Their opinions are worthy of nothing but public scorn and contempt. Think whatever you like, but evolution is a demonstrable fact.
Seems Rwingett is getting a little mad. I'm sorry Rwingett. You do know everything and I am wrong. I shouldn't have an opinion, because what you say goes.
Note: I am assuming that your attacks on evolution translate into a support for creationism. If that is not the case then you may disregard my entire diatribe.
Originally posted by telerionYou are right, I would like to apologize to frogstop for that remark. My frustration has shown through towards those who discredit their opponents by claiming conspiracy theory. How can we have a constructive debate when he cannot show his opponent an ounce of respect? If that is hi preconceived notion, then he should not bother; similarly, if a creationist IS out here only to further the religion, then he will not contribute anything either.
I agree with him yousers. He's hardly a nut. There is no need to respect a stupid idea in science.
Did you ever read the Wedge Document from the Discovery Institute that I linked? That's what is really behind ID.
Originally posted by yousersI have used the term conspiracy theory to describe the idea that evolutionary scientists really know evolution is a myth and that they maintain a front so that they don't have to admit that it was God who created the universe.
You are right, I would like to apologize to frogstop for that remark. My frustration has shown through towards those who discredit their opponents by claiming conspiracy theory. How can we have a constructive debate when he cannot show his opponent an ounce of respect? If that is hi preconceived notion, then he should not bother; similarly, if a creationist IS out here only to further the religion, then he will not contribute anything either.
The idea then is that tens of thousands of passionate scientists all over the world are collaborating to pass a lie of to their children in an effort to maintain their universal belief in Naturalism can only be called a conspiracy theory.
Some of the creationists on this very board have espoused this notion.