29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra( Fix'd )
We're living after the discovery of DNA, meaning any criticism directed towards the theory of evolution should also address the way DNA has been incorporated into the theory in the mid-20th Century.
Natural selection isn't "variation within species" BTW.
I don't believe you are foolish enough to suggest there were no core tenet(s) before the discovery of DNA. The core tenet of evolution has always been that there is a mechanism akin to natural selection that could account for all of life evolving from a common ancestry.
Natural selection was understood to exist before Darwin formulated his theory. He used NS as a springboard for launching a (suppositional, not proven) theory that all the differences between every form of life on earth could be the result of a different kind of selection process. So the fact that evolutionists have zeroed in on DNA and claim this is the mechanism Darwin anticipated comes as no big surprise.
I think you are smart enough to avoid claiming there were no core tenents of evolution before the discovery of DNA, but who knows... you seem desperate to always prove me wrong, so maybe you will be tempted to argue with this as well.
29 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhy our foundations are vastly different. Experts who are blind to the possibility of anything outside of the nature world will not so much as entertain the possibility of more. So when dead ends arise, or incredibly tall odds within the natural world they refuse to go anywhere that could possibly reveal the need for something more. The basic question where did everything come from doesn't give pause to something beyond the natural world, those types of questions are given the we don't know, but we God didn't do it.
You not think truth is more likely located in the research of experts in the field of evolution, rather than in your personal interpretation of it?
30 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou'll want to watch out. dj2becker may rock up here any moment and tell you that you're not being "objective" and that there is therefore no reason to take you seriously.
Why our foundations are vastly different. Experts who are blind to the possibility of anything outside of the nature world will not so much as entertain the possibility of more. So when dead ends arise, or incredibly tall odds within the natural world they refuse to go anywhere that could possibly reveal the need for something more. The basic question wher ...[text shortened]... he natural world, those types of questions are given the we don't know, but we God didn't do it.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfNo that comment is only reserved for the likes of you who believe there is no objective truth.
You'll want to watch out. dj2becker may rock up here any moment and tell you that you're not being "objective" and that there is therefore no reason to take you seriously.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou have dodged the question. Here it is again: Do you believe we've both shot ourselves in the foot in this conversation or do you think it is only me who has?
Feel free to tell me where and how I may have, I'm all ears.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSo you believe KellyJay is being objective in his discussion with Ghost of a Duke?
No that comment is only reserved for the likes of you who believe there is no objective truth.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeDNA has a ton of information in it, that just magically appeared, started working, started
( Fix'd )
I don't believe you are foolish enough to suggest there were no core tenet(s) before the discovery of DNA. The core tenet of evolution has always been that there is a mechanism akin to natural selection that could account for all of life evolving from a common ancestry.
Natural selection was understood to exist before Darwin formu ...[text shortened]... eem desperate to always prove me wrong, so maybe you will be tempted to argue with this as well.
getting more complex, never did anything that killed off all life. The magic string of
information, that gave life all that was required and some.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayHang on. You do think it "magically appeared"? Or you don't think it "magically appeared"?
DNA has a ton of information in it, that just magically appeared, started working, started
getting more complex, never did anything that killed off all life. The magic string of
information, that gave life all that was required and some.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayDo you more about DNA than the evolutionists...?
DNA has a ton of information in it, that just magically appeared, started working, started
getting more complex, never did anything that killed off all life. The magic string of
information, that gave life all that was required and some.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fabianfnasNo one knows anything compared to evolutionist.
Do you more about DNA than the evolutionists...?
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThere were core tenets. Natural selection, which is a consequence of DNA being expressed in the phenotype, is one. Darwin, and biologists after him, recognized that it occurs, but did not understand how it worked. Indeed, that natural selection was observed so long before DNA was discovered shows you just how strong the evidence in favour of the theory of evolution is.
( Fix'd )
I don't believe you are foolish enough to suggest there were no core tenet(s) before the discovery of DNA. The core tenet of evolution has always been that there is a mechanism akin to natural selection that could account for all of life evolving from a common ancestry.
Natural selection was understood to exist before Darwin formu ...[text shortened]... eem desperate to always prove me wrong, so maybe you will be tempted to argue with this as well.
Since we are living in 2017, we should discuss the state of the theory of evolution anno 2017 if you think there is anything wrong with it.
30 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kellyjayWhat's "outside of the nature (sic) world" is outside the realm of empirical science. We cannot measure it. The theory of evolution makes no statement about, nor addresses in any way the supernatural. It is not an attack on your God, it's just not consistent with your claims about what we can measure.
Why our foundations are vastly different. Experts who are blind to the possibility of anything outside of the nature world will not so much as entertain the possibility of more. So when dead ends arise, or incredibly tall odds within the natural world they refuse to go anywhere that could possibly reveal the need for something more. The basic question wher ...[text shortened]... he natural world, those types of questions are given the we don't know, but we God didn't do it.
