Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

@ retards who don't accept macroevolution

Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:57:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The order of time and magnitude in this universe guarantees the possibility for macroevolution. Take for example:

Dawkins had a pretty good analogy in his book "The Blind Watchmaker." Humans have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. As a result, we have tamed wild wolves into miniature chihuahuas and etc... Now, if you calculate the amount of time that it took to do this (call it one step), and compare it to the amount of time that has existed on Earth for evolution to occur, it would the equivalent of taking the amount of steps required to walk from London to Baghdad, with one of these steps being the equal to the time that it took for wolves to change into small dogs and the likes. Yes, they didn't "technically" change into another "kind," but small changes which accumulate over a near infinite (for our purpose) amount of time build up to extraordinary results.

Also, before you go off on artificial vs natural selection, it is pertinent to point out that they are two sides of the same coin. Artificial selection is dictated by human's preference; natural selection is dictated by the capability for survival and reproduction. In fact, I would contend that the latter is more capable than the former.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:02:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The phrase "I don't believe in evolution" never did make any sense....Evolution subsists in truth, not belief. Either it is true or it is false; leave your opinion at the door, or in the trash, if you could be so kind. But that's not the case, people deny macroevolution because they don't feel that it is true - and that's the height of their persuasion. That's why they can comfortably say "I don't believe in evolution"
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:05:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:02:53 PM, 000ike wrote:
The phrase "I don't believe in evolution" never did make any sense....Evolution subsists in truth, not belief. Either it is true or it is false; leave your opinion at the door, or in the trash, if you could be so kind. But that's not the case, people deny macroevolution because they don't feel that it is true - and that's the height of their persuasion. That's why they can comfortably say "I don't believe in evolution"

Exactly. I made it a point to not use the word "believe" and instead opt for the word "accept," since whether somebody "believes" something is irrelevant to whether it is true.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:37:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

This is an example of the complete and utter lack of understanding of evolution from creationists. As soon as you accept that organisms can evolve small variations, it is a logical consequence that they can evolve into other species (macroevolution). Macroevolution isn't actually a thing, it's just a combination of lots of microevolution.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.

Nobody claims that we evolved from apes- we are apes. Instead, humans share a common ancestor with all apes, most recently with the chimpanzee.

Also, if you say that we evolved, then how on Earth can you discard all scientific evidence for the specific evolutionary tree? That's like saying: "I believe that gravity exists, but it's not the force that creates orbits of planets." wtf.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:42:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is a pretty concise and accurate review of the book by a scientist:

"Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not biologists. Fodor is a leading philosopher of mind and cognitive scientist, best known for his ideas about the modularity of mind and language of thought; Piattelli-Palmarini is a cognitive scientist. They do not have new data, new theory, close acquaintance with the everyday practice of evolutionary investigations, or any interest in supplying alternative explanations of evolutionary phenomena. Instead, they wield philosophical tools to locate a "conceptual fault line" in contemporary Darwinism. Apparently unshaken by withering criticism of Fodor"s earlier writings about evolutionary theory, they write with complete assurance, confident that their limited understanding of biology suffices for their critical purpose. The resulting argument is doubly flawed: it is biologically irrelevant and philosophically confused."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:51:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:42:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is a pretty concise and accurate review of the book by a scientist:

"Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini are not biologists. Fodor is a leading philosopher of mind and cognitive scientist, best known for his ideas about the modularity of mind and language of thought; Piattelli-Palmarini is a cognitive scientist. They do not have new data, new theory, close acquaintance with the everyday practice of evolutionary investigations, or any interest in supplying alternative explanations of evolutionary phenomena. Instead, they wield philosophical tools to locate a "conceptual fault line" in contemporary Darwinism. Apparently unshaken by withering criticism of Fodor"s earlier writings about evolutionary theory, they write with complete assurance, confident that their limited understanding of biology suffices for their critical purpose. The resulting argument is doubly flawed: it is biologically irrelevant and philosophically confused."

Again, what's your point? I didn't say whether the argument(s) are successful or not.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:00:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.

Correct. Humans have changed - but they are still humans. Dogs have changed - but they are still dogs. Both sides (only two sides, broadly speaking) at some point simply throw up their hands and assume that which they cannot prove by scientific methods. The question is: "Who takes the bigger leap?"
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:11:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:00:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.

Correct. Humans have changed - but they are still humans. Dogs have changed - but they are still dogs. Both sides (only two sides, broadly speaking) at some point simply throw up their hands and assume that which they cannot prove by scientific methods. The question is: "Who takes the bigger leap?"

Macroevolution takes millions of years to occur. There are examples of it happening in the fossil record, but to actually state "Give me physical, empirical, and recordable proof of macroevolution occurring" is retarded. That's like me asking you "Give me a video recording of God."
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And actually, the scientific definition for macroevolution is the evolution of organisms so that they cannot reproduce with the previous species. In that case, there are plenty of examples of macroevolution happening:

http://examples.yourdictionary.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

@ Pop, do you deny that evolution occurred?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:23:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:19:21 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

@ Pop, do you deny that evolution occurred?

No.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:27:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.

And IDers like Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer accept this.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.

"The first point one has to get straight in discussions like this, is that ID is not the opposite of evolution. Rather, it is the opposite of Darwinism, which says life evolved by an utterly unguided, undirected mechanism. If god directed the process of evolution, or rigged the universe to produce complex life, then that is not Darwinism - it is intelligent design."
~ Michael Behe, Good News, January 2011

So...what were you saying, again?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:29:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:27:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.

And IDers like Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer accept this.

Evidence?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:33:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:29:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:27:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.

And IDers like Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer accept this.

Evidence?

Let me get this straight. You're saying that ID as a movement denies evolution yet you're unaware of the positions of it's most prominent and best advocates?

....................................
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:49:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You know what , it's a theory , don't get so nervous for it. sure there are changes in creation , but it's just that men do not evolve from apes, they are too different from champazies , different in the hair style , walking habits, and especially inteligence. why would apes be the only kind that would evolve in inteligent naked human species.

Those things are not facts anyways. you're fighting for your own beleives.
annanicole
Posts: 19,784
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:54:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:11:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:00:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.

Correct. Humans have changed - but they are still humans. Dogs have changed - but they are still dogs. Both sides (only two sides, broadly speaking) at some point simply throw up their hands and assume that which they cannot prove by scientific methods. The question is: "Who takes the bigger leap?"

Macroevolution takes millions of years to occur. There are examples of it happening in the fossil record, but to actually state "Give me physical, empirical, and recordable proof of macroevolution occurring" is retarded. That's like me asking you "Give me a video recording of God."

Yep, similar. The evidence of one is written in a book - and in the world about us. The evidence of the other is written in a fossil record. As I said, it's a question of who takes the bigger leap.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 3:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:54:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:00:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:29:46 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
My opinion is none can discard and deny evolution completely.

Even in religion we have some belief about evolution , that Humans were not the size they are today, nor the strength, we have evolved, but not from apes.

Correct. Humans have changed - but they are still humans. Dogs have changed - but they are still dogs. Both sides (only two sides, broadly speaking) at some point simply throw up their hands and assume that which they cannot prove by scientific methods. The question is: "Who takes the bigger leap?"

Macroevolution takes millions of years to occur. There are examples of it happening in the fossil record, but to actually state "Give me physical, empirical, and recordable proof of macroevolution occurring" is retarded. That's like me asking you "Give me a video recording of God."

Yep, similar. The evidence of one is written in a book - and in the world about us. The evidence of the other is written in a fossil record. As I said, it's a question of who takes the bigger leap.

http://www.amazon.com...

Hmmm...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:10:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 2:33:28 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:29:24 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:27:03 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:14:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:12:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 2:11:10 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:58:31 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:54:35 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:49:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:40:00 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/21/2013 1:36:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/21/2013 12:57:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
This is in the religion forum because any attempt to deny or not accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious "thinking."

You're such a try-hard.

http://www.examiner.com...

Come on, bud. This is a philosopher writing books on evolution. That's like an evolutionist writing books on quantum mechanics- it's not relevant or reliable. None of his arguments are actually scientific; they are based on philosophical assumptions of natural selection.

Cool story. What does that have to do with your claim that "any attempt to deny or accept evolution is firmly grounded in religious 'thinking'"?

He's not denying evolution; he's denying Darwinism. The two are not synonymous. In the same way that Jay Gould promoting punctuated equilibrium instead of gradualism is not the same as denying evolution.

So do ID'ers deny evolution?

Yes.

Why do you say that? They're not denying evolution; they're just denying Darwinism.

Err.... no. Evolution, in general, still states that all organisms shared a common ancestor.

And IDers like Michael Behe or Stephen Meyer accept this.

Evidence?

Let me get this straight. You're saying that ID as a movement denies evolution yet you're unaware of the positions of it's most prominent and best advocates?

....................................

"Intelligent design (ID) is a form of creationism promulgated by the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank based in the U.S. The Institute defines it as the proposition that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1][2] It is a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins" rather than "a religious-based idea".[3] All the leading proponents of intelligent design are associated with the Discovery Institute [n 1][4] and believe the designer to be the Christian deity.[n 2]"

If you don't believe in natural selection, any attempt to state that you believe in evolution is stupid.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 4:13:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 3:49:50 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
You know what , it's a theory , don't get so nervous for it. sure there are changes in creation , but it's just that men do not evolve from apes, they are too different from champazies , different in the hair style , walking habits, and especially inteligence. why would apes be the only kind that would evolve in inteligent naked human species.

Those things are not facts anyways. you're fighting for your own beleives.

Yes. Clearly, you, an illiterate 28 year old female, know much more about genomic sequencing and the very basis of evolution via evidence such as "different in the hair style" and "men do not evolve from apes" than something like 99.99% of all PhDs in life sciences who have dedicated their entire life's work to this subject.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."