Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The evolution debate

keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.

I'd rather this debate avoids becoming yet another debate about whether evolution is true. There are already too many of those. A folorn hope, no doubt. What I am saying is that which ever side wins the debate it will have profound significance way beyond the confines of ivory tower academia.

Am I wrong?
Axonly
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:39:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.

I'd rather this debate avoids becoming yet another debate about whether evolution is true. There are already too many of those. A folorn hope, no doubt. What I am saying is that which ever side wins the debate it will have profound significance way beyond the confines of ivory tower academia.

Am I wrong?

Sometimes it is, but most of the time its biologists arguing with creationists over a well established theory.
Meh!
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:45:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
So you think it's primarily a private spat between intellectuals with no wider significance than debating who wrote Shakespeare's plays?

I think if the conservatives win it will have consequences for how science is taught, how and which research us funded, for abortion and family law. It will affect how medicine is practiced. Let's be clear-a conservative win means most Americans would be convinced the biblecis right and science wrong. That is what I mean by 'winning the debate'. I don't think it is wise to underestimate what is at stake.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:55:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Creationists can't win. "Life is too complex, therefore an even more complex thing created life, called God!" just passes the buck.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:41:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I think fairly recent figures show 40% of the us population accept evolution and 40% reject it, 20% undecided. Hardly grounds for complacency.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 10:47:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You can literally prove them wrong, and they will still try to impose their beliefs. They just want to impose their beliefs. It doesn't matter what the facts are!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 11:32:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I agree. But I don't think it would end at causing a change in the biology text books used in schools- although that is bad enough. If it becomes accepted that the bible trumps logic, reason and inded the facts then where might it lead?
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 1:22:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.

I'd rather this debate avoids becoming yet another debate about whether evolution is true. There are already too many of those. A folorn hope, no doubt. What I am saying is that which ever side wins the debate it will have profound significance way beyond the confines of ivory tower academia.

Am I wrong?

You are right in the sense that the "battle" over evolution is really a symptom of a bigger problem. However, I think you are wrong to call it a debate.

There is no real debate or controversy regarding evolution. It is a beat-up and always has been. All you have is a tiny minority of Christians (the fundamentalists), mostly from the USA, who pretend that there is a problem. You can see it being repeated endlessly on social media and sites like this one. Their criticisms are always founded in ignorance, without exception.

There is no scientific debate about evolution except in the minutia of how it works. The fundies just don't get it. If evolution could have been falsified then it would have been falsified and some biologist would have made themselves famous. Yet, even after 150 years, the foolish creationists still think that they can overturn the most successful scientific theory in history. It beggars belief. To even call it a debate is to lend them a credibility they don't deserve.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 3:24:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
More than 40% of the us public also give them credence they don't deserve. Positive belief in evolution is a minority in the us. It's not a matter of being right-its a matter of politics. Discrediting evolution is not the objective of the religious right. The objective is political power. The evolution 'debate' is a means to that end... And it seems me that in terms of what matters in politics - popular support - they are not losing the debate.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 4:40:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.

I'd rather this debate avoids becoming yet another debate about whether evolution is true. There are already too many of those. A folorn hope, no doubt. What I am saying is that which ever side wins the debate it will have profound significance way beyond the confines of ivory tower academia.


Am I wrong?
At this point, politics aside, from a science standpoint, it would appear that creationists (Bible creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design) believe both ID and evolution should be presented objectively on the public stage (not the courtroom). The idea behind this is that for one, it would allow individuals to draw their own conclusion, and one or the other may eventually fall out of the picture. It would appear on the other end that evolutionists simply want creationism/ID out of the picture.

Does this seem accurate to you?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:23:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Although I (questionably) put this in the science forum, I don't think 'politics aside' is appropriate.
However I appreciate you point. The reason creationists are arguing for 'equal time' and evolutionists for a one-sided victory is they are is that the ultimate objectives of each side are different. Evos are only fighting for an intellectual victory in an academic debate (or so many of us think). For creationists itvis only a staging post. They know they won't win if they come across as religious fanatics. Equal time and ID are intended make it appear they are on the side of fairness and rationality. The fanatics are Dawkins and hutchins.

As your own post indicates, the strategy of appeararing the ',moderate' party against fanatical evolutionists is working.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:35:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.

I'd rather this debate avoids becoming yet another debate about whether evolution is true. There are already too many of those. A folorn hope, no doubt. What I am saying is that which ever side wins the debate it will have profound significance way beyond the confines of ivory tower academia.

Am I wrong?

I was agreeing with you on the other thread that evolution is primarily politics because evolution is not science. It is not subject to test and verification and therefore is not science.

Demonstrate that mutation and selection can do what you claim they can do - devise some actual repeatable experiments like real science does - and you guys won't have to rely on authorized teachers shaping little skulls full of mush to maintain your power.

But this business of claiming the problem with evolution is recalcitrant Bible thumpers - it's just pathetic, man. Yer living in the previous millenium for starters, and I just don't see a lot of Mennonites knocking down doors and dragging people off to prison.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 6:45:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:23:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Although I (questionably) put this in the science forum, I don't think 'politics aside' is appropriate.
However I appreciate you point. The reason creationists are arguing for 'equal time' and evolutionists for a one-sided victory is they are is that the ultimate objectives of each side are different. Evos are only fighting for an intellectual victory in an academic debate (or so many of us think). For creationists itvis only a staging post.

Arggghhh, what a lot of stinking excrement. I think Darwin was just wrong. All the ad hominems in the world aren't going the change the fact that all extant species simply did not descend from one common ancestor by a noise driven process. It just is nonsense, just didn't happen. I mean, I could see the flaws in Darwin's argument reading his book as a teenager. I just cannot fathom why this quaint weirdness has gotten such traction. Well, I guess I can, but there's no future in going into that with the anti-religious.
This space for rent.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 7:53:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'm not going to debate whether evolution is true in this thread, v3. It's not as if what the world needs is itanother evo/ID debate.

But I take it you don't think the religious right are using evolution as a stalking-horse. Once the evil of elvolutuon is banished from school text books that's it, finished.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 8:39:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:53:31 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm not going to debate whether evolution is true in this thread, v3. It's not as if what the world needs is itanother evo/ID debate.

But I take it you don't think the religious right are using evolution as a stalking-horse. Once the evil of elvolutuon is banished from school text books that's it, finished.

People don't want their kids taught nonsense. I'm not sure that's really a religious thing. There are all sorts of odd correlations in life, and while there are obviously plenty of weird religious nuts, I think in this case religion produces the clearer thinking, all else being equal.
This space for rent.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2016 9:37:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 7:20:30 AM, keithprosser wrote:
It is my view that the evolution debate is not about evolution at all. It is the battle-ground in a war between ideologies - religious conservatism and liberal secularism. At stake is who is going to define the future direction and policy of (primarily) the united states. And that matters whichever country you live in.
Am I wrong?
No, you're not wrong. Keith. The evolution pseudodebate is actually not prosecuted by religious institutions over-all, because most mainstream religious institutions -- Catholic, Anglican, Judaic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist -- have accepted the science for half a century or more.

The hold-outs are principally fundamentalist Evangelicals, along with some millennialist cults like the Jehova's Witnesses. But it's the Evangelicals who are funding and coordinating the pseudocontroversy, which is mainly limited to the US, where fundamentalist Evangelicalism has its heartland. It's largely baffling the rest of the developed world -- and a great deal of the developing world too -- as to why the most technologically advanced nation on the planet is being so loudly dumb. :)

But the answer has its roots deep in some tectonic events of US cultural history from over a century ago.

Fundamentalist Evangelicalism has its roots in late 19th century conservative US Protestantism. As you rightly conjectured, it's a backlash against secularism, but also against the loss of Protestant dominance in the US with waves of Catholic immigration, the loss of national cohesion identity following the Civil War, and the increasing focus of moderate Christians on social welfare, rather than religious activism. It has waxed and waned over the last century, but has been on the rise since the 1960s, both in popularity, and its influence in US politics.

There are really no public policy questions at stake regarding evolution except the right to teach fundamentalist theology as fact in US schools, and thus rebuild Protestant Christian nationalism -- which is precisely what Evangelical fundamentalists want.

So all the discrediting of science, the fabrication of scientific credentials, the pseudotheory of Intelligent Design, the pseudoevidence, the pseudoscientific pseudopapers... the endless propaganda websites... that's all pantomime to get the Bible taught as 'alternative history' and 'alternative science' in US primary schools.

And as sad is this forlorn vision of a Mark Twain Protestant America a century deceased, it's also hilarious in that they actually documented the deceits of their current marketing campaign of deceit before pursuing them. You can find it here: [http://ncse.com...] A copy of the original is here: [http://ncse.com...] Absurdly, they seem unaware of the fact (or indifferent to it) that you don't do science by deciding what it should find, and don't validate it by public opinion. :)

And to me, the most disturbing part of this decades-long charade is that despite broad knowledge that this is a deliberate multigenerational campaign of deceit and public manipulation, many Americans still don't understand how damaging this is to both their national intellectual capital, and their social processes for justice. :( Apparently, the Discovery Institute read Americans right in that they now think truth is a smorgasboard you can customise to your liking, heedless of the ignorance, cruelty and injustice of working that way. :p

(Perhaps liberal cultural relativism itself is at fault for teaching that in the first place.)
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 7:46:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thanks for that analysis, Rav. But I still feel a bit guilty of pushing a 'conspiracy theory'. I am sure v3 does doesn't make his anto-evolution posts because he wants to see see Ken ham in the white house, at least not consciously. He genuinely believes creationism over evolution.

Let me give my take on this 'conspiracy theory'.

I don't think that there is a secret cabbal of religious conservatives who meet up in a dark room, each with his own white cat. Rather religious conservatives are aware of each other and that awareness encourages them to act autonomously for a cause that is articulated nowhere. It exists onlu as a shared world view. A foot soldier like v3 posts on internet forums. Richer conservatives build creationist mueums and theme parks, or set up web sites or TV stations.

The founders if icr and answers in genesis dont post on web sites, but they provide the ammunition and (mis-) information for those that do. Thar arrangement was not ageed but came about informally by the synergy of conservatives acting autonomously, doing thei bit it as they see it at the time.

Religious conservatism is not a conspiracy,in the sense there are no explicit conspirators. There is no one giving orders to v3. He doesn't need any - he knows there is a role he can play and so plays it. In that way religious conservatism self-organises with no need of meeting in smokey rooms. Indeed the participants - even prominent ones - may not even realise they are are part of a movement.

Of course there are prominent figures who are natural candidates to take formal leadership roles when religious conservatism evolves into an explicit organisation, bit they aren't issuing any orders yet. The time when v3 gets a daily email from HQ telling him the quota of posts expected and the topics he is to post on is not on us yet. No need for such orders.. He does it anyway.

So religious conservatism isnt run from the Vatican by an alliance if the pope, queen elizabeth and warren buffet. It's (mostly) an unconscious alliance of individuals with similar word-views. But it can raidly evolve into a formal organisation if required. One can guess who would be in the cabinet formed of explicit creationists. But v3, you won't be in it.
Looncall
Posts: 440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 8:18:58 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 7:46:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Thanks for that analysis, Rav. But I still feel a bit guilty of pushing a 'conspiracy theory'. I am sure v3 does doesn't make his anto-evolution posts because he wants to see see Ken ham in the white house, at least not consciously. He genuinely believes creationism over evolution.


Let me give my take on this 'conspiracy theory'.

I don't think that there is a secret cabbal of religious conservatives who meet up in a dark room, each with his own white cat. Rather religious conservatives are aware of each other and that awareness encourages them to act autonomously for a cause that is articulated nowhere. It exists onlu as a shared world view. A foot soldier like v3 posts on internet forums. Richer conservatives build creationist mueums and theme parks, or set up web sites or TV stations.

The founders if icr and answers in genesis dont post on web sites, but they provide the ammunition and (mis-) information for those that do. Thar arrangement was not ageed but came about informally by the synergy of conservatives acting autonomously, doing thei bit it as they see it at the time.

Religious conservatism is not a conspiracy,in the sense there are no explicit conspirators. There is no one giving orders to v3. He doesn't need any - he knows there is a role he can play and so plays it. In that way religious conservatism self-organises with no need of meeting in smokey rooms. Indeed the participants - even prominent ones - may not even realise they are are part of a movement.

Of course there are prominent figures who are natural candidates to take formal leadership roles when religious conservatism evolves into an explicit organisation, bit they aren't issuing any orders yet. The time when v3 gets a daily email from HQ telling him the quota of posts expected and the topics he is to post on is not on us yet. No need for such orders.. He does it anyway.

So religious conservatism isnt run from the Vatican by an alliance if the pope, queen elizabeth and warren buffet. It's (mostly) an unconscious alliance of individuals with similar word-views. But it can raidly evolve into a formal organisation if required. One can guess who would be in the cabinet formed of explicit creationists. But v3, you won't be in it.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. There is an organized effort (see the Wedge Document). The organized types are busily feeding the rubes talking points, building idiot "museums" and promoting templates for legislation.
'
I suppose you are right in that the rubes think they are acting independently.

With religion a con game anyway, it's easy for scoundrels to take advantage of believers in their drive toward theocracy.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 9:18:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thanks for pointing that out. For simplicity I presented religious conservatism as individuals to contrast it with the notion of something organised by a shadowy cabal pulling the strings. Certainly there are organisations such as the one you mentioned, but they are not actually pulling the strings or giving the orders at this stage - at least I assume not!
Looncall
Posts: 440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 10:33:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 9:18:45 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. For simplicity I presented religious conservatism as individuals to contrast it with the notion of something organised by a shadowy cabal pulling the strings. Certainly there are organisations such as the one you mentioned, but they are not actually pulling the strings or giving the orders at this stage - at least I assume not!

I suppose it is more like supplying programming to robots (unthinking followers). That can be much more effective than giving orders.

One of the problems with religion is unthinking obedience to authority figures. It is so easy to be taken for an authority when one need not support one's propositions with facts.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:21:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I was agreeing with you on the other thread that evolution is primarily politics because evolution is not science. It is not subject to test and verification and therefore is not science.

This crap again?
Evolution is as much a fact as the earth revolves around the sun, and the scientific evidence is staggering.

Demonstrate that mutation and selection can do what you claim they can do - devise some actual repeatable experiments like real science does - and you guys won't have to rely on authorized teachers shaping little skulls full of mush to maintain your power.

Objectively check these out.
http://www.pnas.org...
http://www.pnas.org...

And again, polyploidy, a concept of which you are largely unaware, demonstrates mutation can do what evolution claims it can do...have you ever tried to look at evidence that conflicts with your belief?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 2:52:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 6:23:37 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Although I (questionably) put this in the science forum, I don't think 'politics aside' is appropriate.
Yeah. What I meant was without going behind the scenes (where the politics are).

However I appreciate you point. The reason creationists are arguing for 'equal time' and evolutionists for a one-sided victory is they are is that the ultimate objectives of each side are different. Evos are only fighting for an intellectual victory in an academic debate (or so many of us think). For creationists itvis only a staging post. They know they won't win if they come across as religious fanatics. Equal time and ID are intended make it appear they are on the side of fairness and rationality. The fanatics are Dawkins and hutchins.

This is what IDers are accused of. But it's really just an assumption. Most IDers are Christians, therefore their agenda must be to push religion/Christianity.

As your own post indicates, the strategy of appeararing the ',moderate' party against fanatical evolutionists is working.
If that was the strategy, it didn't work in the courtroom.

But again, where is the actual proof of this allegation other than the assumption ID must be a proselytizing campaign?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:00:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:45:12 AM, keithprosser wrote:
So you think it's primarily a private spat between intellectuals with no wider significance than debating who wrote Shakespeare's plays?

I think if the conservatives win it will have consequences for how science is taught, how and which research us funded, for abortion and family law. It will affect how medicine is practiced. Let's be clear-a conservative win means most Americans would be convinced the biblecis right and science wrong. That is what I mean by 'winning the debate'. I don't think it is wise to underestimate what is at stake.
Science moved along just fine when many of the prominent scientists were Christians. Why do you think we will revert back to the dark ages should ID be included, or even become the more prominent viewpoint?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:13:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 7:46:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
Thanks for that analysis, Rav. But I still feel a bit guilty of pushing a 'conspiracy theory'. I am sure v3 does doesn't make his anto-evolution posts because he wants to see see Ken ham in the white house,

And I don't agree with Ken Hamm, btw. By his minimalist interpretation of genesis the devil was a talking snake. So I don't agree with Ken Hamm overall, but I'm sure he's right about some things. I do definitely see how creation, any creative act, reflects time like a mirror. That is, take the act of creating something out of the equation, whether it's the moon or a painting, and you may end up with grossly overestimated ages.

And as to politics, I'm what was called a liberal 200 years ago - that is, I believe in personal liberty. Those who pay for education, namely the parents, should decide what children are taught. We don't need Marie Antoinette to pick the menu, as a general observation.
This space for rent.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:15:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 3:24:15 PM, keithprosser wrote:
More than 40% of the us public also give them credence they don't deserve. Positive belief in evolution is a minority in the us. It's not a matter of being right-its a matter of politics. Discrediting evolution is not the objective of the religious right. The objective is political power. The evolution 'debate' is a means to that end... And it seems me that in terms of what matters in politics - popular support - they are not losing the debate.

It's not a debate. And yes, they are losing the battle for hearts and minds:

http://www.slate.com...
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:20:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 2:21:05 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:
I was agreeing with you on the other thread that evolution is primarily politics because evolution is not science. It is not subject to test and verification and therefore is not science.

This crap again?
Evolution is as much a fact as the earth revolves around the sun, and the scientific evidence is staggering.


Universal common descent is not a fact. It is speculation. Your frustration is coming through, here and on the other thread, but I didn't invent the real world, so getting upset at me is misguided.


Objectively check these out.

I've been following the evidence for close to 40 years, hot shot. This arrogance from evolutionists really gets annoying sometimes. I think you're wrong, flat out wrong. Maybe you need to make your own honest assessment of reality for yourself so you won't be so shaken by somebody who thinks differently. Go ahead, make an honest project to figure out, as best as you personally can, how we got here. Decide up front to follow the evidence wherever it leads, though.
This space for rent.
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 3:24:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/28/2016 10:33:44 AM, Looncall wrote:
One of the problems with religion is unthinking obedience to authority figures. It is so easy to be taken for an authority when one need not support one's propositions with facts.

Wait a minute. Science is capable of that same crime. I hear "the science is settled" very often. The science can never be settled, and if it is, it's not actually science.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
MagicAintReal
Posts: 590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:34:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Universal common descent is not a fact. It is speculation. Your frustration is coming through, here and on the other thread, but I didn't invent the real world, so getting upset at me is misguided.

Explain the LUCA then sir.

I've been following the evidence for close to 40 years, hot shot.

I responded to this, but here it is again...how does someone who has been studying evolution for 40 years not know of polyploidy?

This arrogance from evolutionists really gets annoying sometimes. I think you're wrong, flat out wrong. Maybe you need to make your own honest assessment of reality for yourself so you won't be so shaken by somebody who thinks differently. Go ahead, make an honest project to figure out, as best as you personally can, how we got here. Decide up front to follow the evidence wherever it leads, though.

Explain how the evidence, not I, is wrong.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,919
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:36:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Hi rodetickspode! Bertie w sends his regards.

As i said, don't think evolution is the issue. The issue is what world view is to dominate politics. How should, say divorce law be framed? On rational lines, or according to scripture?

If you accept the precedence of scripture over hard won scientific knowledge then it is going to be hard to argue it doesn't have precedence over subjective liberal values.

If you are the sort of person who thinks genesis is right and origin of species wrong you are - ibsuggestv- the sort of person who thinks so about much else in scripture. The flood will be taught as fact.

There may be some people who really think try evolution is bad science. That would wash if they didn't embrace superstion in its place.
Dragon_of_Christ
Posts: 1,293
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2016 4:41:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/27/2016 8:55:52 AM, user13579 wrote:
Creationists can't win. "Life is too complex, therefore an even more complex thing created life, called God!" just passes the buck.

Actually god is simple.

He is perfect, not complex.

U mad bro?
Jesus loves you.

////////////

-Funny Links-
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

Stupid atheist remarks #: 6