non religious opposition to darwinism

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments (Page 2)

Showing posts 21 - 40 of84
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Nov 10, 2011
 
Shadow wrote:
<quoted text>
Discord name me a book on evolution that you like, and I will answer that question.
You can pick one if you like, I don't happen to have one in front of me.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Nov 10, 2011
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Growth in an individual is not evolution.
I wouldn't trust you to answer a telephone.
Not only that, I wouldn't trust his opinion on the time of day.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Nov 10, 2011
 
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only that, I wouldn't trust his opinion on the time of day.
Or day of the week.

Or month of the year.

Etc.
chemist

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Nov 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Lamarck Correct? Darwin wrong!

Modern day research may have proven Lamarcks claims, as opposed to Darwins. Can acquired characteristics be inherited? Scientist Edward Steele says so!

See:

Lamarck's Evolution: Two Centuries of Genius and Jealousy by Ross Honeywill

Lamarck's Signature : How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm by Edward J. S, Robyn A. Lindley and Robert V. Blanden

Against gradualism

James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force, against the Central Dogma, for rapid change (HGT, symbiosis, whole genome duplication, hybridization, natural genetic engineering) and for adaptive mutation.

Symbiosis

The most recent book of Lynn Margulis (2002) Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Nov 21, 2011
 

Judged:

1

chemist wrote:
Lamarck Correct? Darwin wrong!
Modern day research may have proven Lamarcks claims, as opposed to Darwins. Can acquired characteristics be inherited? Scientist Edward Steele says so!
See:
Lamarck's Evolution: Two Centuries of Genius and Jealousy by Ross Honeywill
Lamarck's Signature : How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin's Natural Selection Paradigm by Edward J. S, Robyn A. Lindley and Robert V. Blanden
Against gradualism
James A. Shapiro (2011) Evolution: A View from the 21st Century is against gradualism, against random mutations, against natural selection as a creative force, against the Central Dogma, for rapid change (HGT, symbiosis, whole genome duplication, hybridization, natural genetic engineering) and for adaptive mutation.
Symbiosis
The most recent book of Lynn Margulis (2002) Acquiring Genomes. A Theory of the Origins of Species attacks neo-Darwinism. Margulis is an evolutionist but rejects mutation and natural selection as the mechanism for creating new species. Instead symbiosis (the incorporation of the whole genome of one species by an unrelated species), creates new species.
Hey Shadow, please stop spamming the threads using sockpuppets and out-of-context quotes and other bs which we've already addressed previously.

And we know you're not a chemist, or biologist or a physicist, as you don't seem to know the basics of any of these, and we know you've argued against each and every one of them in your self-righteous anti-evolution crusade.
lol

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Nov 21, 2011
 
the dude your a pub worker, ur probs 30 or 40 years older than me. i am in college, go and serve those pints out. how redundent your life turned out to be thats what u get for putting ppl down ur whole life, u aint a chemist or biologist either. u got stumped by the work of lynn margulis i see, no comment there from you, close your eyes to evidenc u dont wanna see. lols
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Nov 22, 2011
 

Judged:

1

lol wrote:
the dude your a pub worker,
Incorrect.
lol wrote:
ur probs 30 or 40 years older than me.
Physically impossible.
lol wrote:
i am in college,
Studying how to be a new-age crank?(shrug)
lol wrote:
go and serve those pints out. how redundent your life turned out to be thats what u get for putting ppl down ur whole life,
You're trolling a forum about a subject you have know knowledge and little interest in and my life is redundant?

And I only put people down if they deserve it.
lol wrote:
u aint a chemist or biologist either.
Nope, but unlike yourself I did pass my science exams and have a basic understanding of the scientific method and why it works.
lol wrote:
u got stumped by the work of lynn margulis i see, no comment there from you,
Actually I addressed that a week or two ago if I recall. Fact is that she doesn't dispute evolution the way you do. Another thing is that while she is a respected biologist, her ideas re evolution are not the mainstream, which means she needs to carry the burden of proving that her ideas are correct. These things take time. But for you, she's just another contrary opinion you can quote in your endless lists of appeal to authority, meaning all you are capable of is logical fallacies.
lol wrote:
close your eyes to evidenc u dont wanna see. lols
Projection. Your appeals to various authorities are all over the map, ranging from cranks, creationists, respected scientists whose ideas haven't been accepted by the mainstream, non-respected scientists who haven't been accepted by the mainstream, biologists taken out of context, and scientists and non-scientists who aren't even qualified to critique the subject. Not even counting yourself who doesn't even have a clue about what the heck you're talking about in the first place.

And this is where you fail. Sure, you love to play the underdog against the establishment of them "mean old Darwinists", but the problem is that most of your sources disagree with each other. Some even disagree with you. They can't ALL be right, But you couldn't care less because you're just looking for any contrarian opinion to back you up because you're playing a PR game. You're not interested in science. Which is why when we do feel the need to present scientific evidence to you, you avoid addressing it in favour of finding a cool sounding quote that you can mine. And thats why you always fall down.

Consistency. You lack it. We don't. The only thing you're consistent in is at EPIC FAIL.

Oh, and uh, "lol!"

http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/4/40/...
lol

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Nov 28, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Actually I addressed that a week or two ago if I recall. Fact is that she doesn't dispute evolution the way you do."

she died a couple of days ago, but if u read her books you would realised she was a strong critic of neodarwinism and natural selection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/science/lyn...

New york times on her theory:

"The hypothesis was a direct challenge to the prevailing neo-Darwinist belief that the primary evolutionary mechanism was random mutation."

non-darwinian evolution is really a threat to you militant darwinists isnt it??!

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Nov 28, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lol wrote:
"Actually I addressed that a week or two ago if I recall. Fact is that she doesn't dispute evolution the way you do."
she died a couple of days ago, but if u read her books you would realised she was a strong critic of neodarwinism and natural selection.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/science/lyn...
New york times on her theory:
"The hypothesis was a direct challenge to the prevailing neo-Darwinist belief that the primary evolutionary mechanism was random mutation."
non-darwinian evolution is really a threat to you militant darwinists isnt it??!
There is no such thing as a neo-Darwinist. There is no such thing as a militant Darwinist. There is no such thing as a Darwinist.

No one defending Evolution has anything invested in Darwin. If absolutely everything he wrote was completely refuted it still wouldn't eliminate his contributions to science.

Trying to paint people who defend Evolution as 'Darwinists' just makes you look silly, especially when you do it hiding behind 4-5 different names.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Nov 28, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lol wrote:
non-darwinian evolution is really a threat to you militant darwinists isnt it??!
Not really. We just expect that for any alternative to be taken seriously to be backed up with evidence and be demonstrated via the scientific method.

For example, it took a while before plate tectonics became the prevailing theory in geology, but eventually the evidence won out. We're more than happy for the same thing to happen to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.

Unfortunately we know it ain't gonna come from you, since your lack of scientific integrity and inconsistency blow both your feet off from the get-go.

Bye, fruitloaf.
LGK

Preston, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Dec 9, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

I conclude from data & logical interpretation thereof + general & specific experience of the natural world that living organisms WERE / ARE designed. I conclude using my brain & I unashamedly advise everyone to do that. It cuts the bull.

Now, whether one calls my position creationist, ID or other is irrelevant. It’s the facts & how they are interpreted that matters & ALL facts are interpreted at ALL levels. For every reputable scientist who asserts the truth of Darwinism you can find an equally clever & educated one who asserts its falsity. Who cares?

Now for that data / facts & its interpretation, let’s start with what my grandmother would have quite rightly observed.

1) Evolutionists say ‘X’ e.g. the eye is badly designed & how do they know this? They saw it with their own eyes!

2) They say ID or creationism is not testable & how do they know this? They tested ID/creationism; that’s why they think both are false. They tested them!

3) They cite or recycle experiments to show how life could have arisen naturally (S Miller, RIP) & how do they do this? They intelligently design the experiments!

4) And of course “Natural Selection” is neither a law of nature nor derived from any observation. It’s inferred AFTER the effect. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe in it except decree by human fiat sustained by repetition. It’s double-speak, double-bind & newspeak. In other words, a Psyops.

I could go into the biology picking this or that example but that’s a complete waste of time. This is NOT about biology or science. At best it’s about worldview, at worst psychological conditioning. Both are very, very hard to shift because Evolution is just as much a religion.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Dec 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"And of course “Natural Selection” is neither a law of nature nor derived from any observation. It’s inferred AFTER the effect. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe in it except decree by human fiat sustained by repetition. It’s double-speak, double-bind & newspeak. In other words, a Psyops."

I agree with this.

10/10
LGK

Kendal, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Dec 11, 2011
 
Shadow wrote:
"And of course “Natural Selection” is neither a law of nature nor derived from any observation. It’s inferred AFTER the effect. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe in it except decree by human fiat sustained by repetition. It’s double-speak, double-bind & newspeak. In other words, a Psyops."
I agree with this.
10/10
You are very brave to agree the emperor of natural selection has no clothes. Most people crumble when the full force of rhetoric, argument from authority & confident assertion is brought to bear.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Dec 11, 2011
 
LGK the reason evolutionists say that ID is untestable is because the proponents of ID cannot come up with a test for it, and it is up to the people in ID to propose a reasonable test that would show ID is false. Evolutionists have shown how easy it would be to debunk evolution, but creationists have never come close. An please don't use your straw man arguments to try to debunk evolution you are only fooling fools if you do so. People who understand evolution can see your errors from a mile away.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Dec 11, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
You are very brave to agree the emperor of natural selection has no clothes. Most people crumble when the full force of rhetoric, argument from authority & confident assertion is brought to bear.
Natural selection is metaphysics dressed up as science. It can not be tested and fails to meet the scientific method of making testable predictions and observations.

The idea that the useful features of an organism were "selected" is an assumption rather than a testable idea, this is not science. Also, in nature, female creatures will often mate with "weaker" males. Also Darwins idea of everything being a struggle and fight for existence is not confirmed by what we see in nature. Some species need eachother to survive its called a mutualistic relationship, Darwinists completey ignore all of this.

Dairy ants and aphids have a mutualistic relationship. The ants protect the aphids from possible predators. In return, the aphids provide the ants with honeydew. There is no natural selection, nothing being "selected". Nature is deep co-operation and relationship no struggle etc.

Some flowers have a mutualistic relationship with a specific insect. One species of orchid, keeps its nectar at the bottom of a tube which is between 20cm to 35cm long. It is totally dependent on a species of hawkmoth for pollination. Where is the "natural selection" here? These species need eachother to survive, nothing is being "selected" and their is no "struggle" and "fighting" for existence.

Darwinism is a fairytale, only reason it's supported is becuase it's easy to put in the gap, scientists can get payed without being busy.
LGK

Meifod, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Dec 11, 2011
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
LGK the reason evolutionists say that ID is untestable is because the proponents of ID cannot come up with a test for it, and it is up to the people in ID to propose a reasonable test that would show ID is false. Evolutionists have shown how easy it would be to debunk evolution, but creationists have never come close. An please don't use your straw man arguments to try to debunk evolution you are only fooling fools if you do so. People who understand evolution can see your errors from a mile away.
It is very naive to say Intelligent Design is not testable. The propaganda obviously works, very well too. Let's look at a few examples of where ID is routinely tested.

FORENSIC SCIENTISTs test for intelligent causes Vs natural ones.

• Arson Vs Accidental fire
• Was she pushed or did she fall
• Is it murder or is it death by natural cause

ARCHEOLOGISTS test for intelligence over natural cause

• Is it an arrow head or just a random sharp stone

ASTRONOMERS test ID principles

• Are radio-waves Alien or Natural noise (SETI)
• Is the universe’s habitability related to its observability

EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGISTS do it too

• Jerry Coyne
• Russell Doolittle
• Ken Miller

have tested the ID hypothesis that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex. That’s why they say it’s not irreducibly complex!

ACADEMIC EXAMINERS test ID

• Is it pligiarised or is original

AVERAGE Joe tests ID

Has my wallet been stolen or have I lost it

The claim that ID is untesteable is not backed by logic, history, science and everyday experience. It’s complete nonsense used to fool gullible masses & keep them blind. You owe it to yourself to wake up & not be fooled so easily. Toddlers can test whether some things happen by themselves or are manipulated. I suspect dogs can do it too but I wouldn't swear to it.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Dec 11, 2011
 
Shadow wrote:
"And of course “Natural Selection” is neither a law of nature nor derived from any observation. It’s inferred AFTER the effect. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe in it except decree by human fiat sustained by repetition. It’s double-speak, double-bind & newspeak. In other words, a Psyops."
I agree with this.
10/10
And this is from someone studying for a Bachelor of Arts. Very convincing.
LGK

Meifod, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Dec 11, 2011
 
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is from someone studying for a Bachelor of Arts. Very convincing.
This is yet another fallacy that props up the hoax of evolutionism alive. I think it's a genetic fallacy, appeal to authority & ad hominem.

It does not take take any education to see that natural selection is NOT observed but read into the script after the effect. All it requires to see the obvious is independent thought.
Shadow

Moulton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Dec 11, 2011
 
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is from someone studying for a Bachelor of Arts. Very convincing.
im probs half your age and I am doing a BA degree in environmental science, I already recieved an A- and a C for my first modules in environmental sustainability and woodland ecology. Please don't vent out your jelousy on me.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Dec 12, 2011
 
LGK wrote:
I conclude from data & logical interpretation thereof + general & specific experience of the natural world that living organisms WERE / ARE designed. I conclude using my brain & I unashamedly advise everyone to do that. It cuts the bull.
Now, whether one calls my position creationist, ID or other is irrelevant. It’s the facts & how they are interpreted that matters & ALL facts are interpreted at ALL levels. For every reputable scientist who asserts the truth of Darwinism you can find an equally clever & educated one who asserts its falsity. Who cares?
Now for that data / facts & its interpretation, let’s start with what my grandmother would have quite rightly observed.
Except there "interpretation" while taking evidence into account, and "interpretation" while ignoring it. ID/C does the latter. Evolution the former.
LGK wrote:
1) Evolutionists say ‘X’ e.g. the eye is badly designed & how do they know this? They saw it with their own eyes!
2) They say ID or creationism is not testable & how do they know this? They tested ID/creationism; that’s why they think both are false. They tested them!
Actually the whole point of ID/Creationism (Goddidit with magic) has NOT been falsified, because it's not testable. That is the point. So what ID/Cers do is offer anti-evolution claims instead, and those claims ARE testable, because EVOLUTION is testable. And those claims have been falsified.

The idea that (a) God created everything is still up in the air for anyone to grab. It's just it's currently too intangible for anyone to get ahold of...
LGK wrote:
3) They cite or recycle experiments to show how life could have arisen naturally (S Miller, RIP) & how do they do this? They intelligently design the experiments!
Which is irrelevant. The experiments are to replicate naturally occurring conditions. They aren't deliberately forcing amino acids to combine to form organic compounds. Just like putting a plant in a plant-pot - no-one is forcing open the seed and dragging a plant up to rise out of it. Which is why all of the intelligently planted plantpots in the world have no bearing on the fact plants reproduce by themselves in their natural environments.

They MAY have been "designed" by God. But my grandma keeping a greenhouse isn't evidence to that effect.
LGK wrote:
4) And of course “Natural Selection” is neither a law of nature nor derived from any observation. It’s inferred AFTER the effect. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe in it except decree by human fiat sustained by repetition. It’s double-speak, double-bind & newspeak. In other words, a Psyops.
So you deny any selection takes place? Reality disagrees with you. But inferring after the fact is not a problem, ya know, it's kinda how science works - observation.
LGK wrote:
I could go into the biology picking this or that example but that’s a complete waste of time.
Correct. That's because you've made it quite clear that you don't have a clue about biology.
LGK wrote:
This is NOT about biology or science. At best it’s about worldview, at worst psychological conditioning. Both are very, very hard to shift because Evolution is just as much a religion.
Projection. You are right in that it's not about science - FOR YOU. So you have little choice in pretending that it's just your religion being every bit as valid as our "religion".

Except we can demonstrate our position via evidence.

By the way, had any luck with that code yet?

Thought so.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 21 - 40 of84
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••