Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Of course it is.

Why would a god need to import dirt to a planet of dirt?

Rote Erde or rothe Erde ("red earth") is the name that has been used since the Middle Ages for the historical Westphalia landscape between the Lower Rhine and Weser river , which roughly corresponds to the western part of the old tribal duchy of Saxony .

That emigrated in the 19th century to Georgia.

Its kinda amusing how youve distanced yourself from the Genesis flood and agree with the rest of us regrdin:Flood mythology: based on regional high water events.
As far as me bringing up the topic, I believe it was you and anoints that were demanding the reality of the Biblical Flood and all the associated tale surrouning it.
If, as you now say, you divorce yourelf from a Noah character, what then is the entire moral lesson you wish to purvey regarding The Flood (or floods in general)??. See allwgoris often have uses in teaching, but if you divorce yourself totally you lose the imperative.


Im fairly accurate about what we know , courtesy of geologic sciences, While some evolution events could have resulted from a geographical isolation afforded by a flood, I think we see that, among the major environmntal wvents that isolate similar species, the Tectonic movement of continental plates around mid oceanic riges, weighs much more clout than does some Biblical legend.

I know , now that youve capitulated, youre kinda caught between two options . I think if you continue reading details of Continental drift an other more catastrophic events, you can see the paths that wvolution took just by sheer chance. Asa Gray, in his discussion with Darwin via post, saw the way the fossil record actually reflects such events .

Continents and Supercontinents a technical volume by Rodgers and Santosh (dated 2020 with a series of later editions, Is still one of the best stated pieces of scientific literature that uses only existing evidence (Available at 2002 to 2025) to xplain th movements of the continental landmasses (And life) through geologic deep time.

Leadfoot gave m instructions to read a book by Dr Myers of the DI. I told Leadfoot that I had already read it so was he interested in debating anything therein?

well, Ill start. Dr Mwyrs has added vry little new. The same subst of talky points have conveniently been ,aid out point by point BUT NEVER TOGETHER.
What I like about IDers is they will argue a point to some poinless death while ignoring the additional subsets that thir own point has hd on other sister disciplines.EG such as " Arguing structure of DNA ,w hile totally ignoring the way we can see evolution in action in the largest vertebrate phyla" (the birds)
Talking about specified information as its contained within DNA ans then ignoring the facts that evolution seems to have acted most noticeably on genera that have the largest number of species within it. Darwin himslf made that point when observing a specific fossil record.
What Meyeres has done is to only include single arguments on single subjects while ignoring the compounding effects of how each ubjct effects another related one.

Hes even given up the arguments of Dr Behe and his "irreproducible complexity" In fact, of all the great thoughts hes included, I found none by Drs Austen, Behe, or th DIscovry Institute itswlf (othr than to introduce Meyers bio)

Actually, I never agreed with you on that.

I've just been busy arguing with The Annointed for the last few days, and too peeved and dustracted to care.

Don't confuse my silence on that for agreement.

I just watched the film Noah. They proposed that there is a sudden rainstorm followed by geysers. Also, that there is a metal called Zohar. This is preposterous.

There wasn't a rainstorm. By flood I mean there was a gradual rise in water level over centuries. Which I have told you repeatedly, but somehow you read as "worldwide flood all at once." We can look at geological records for the former. The latter is basically storytelling. While I like good storytelling, when it comes time to get at the truth, there were a bunch of people not one guy, it was a slow disaster not a rainstorm or sudden geyser, there were not Nephilim involved to the best of my knowledge, and the ark was probably a temporary solution (much like a fish story, it was probably overblown). What I have said repeatedly is that everywhere from Canada to China seems to have a flood story. This isn't a biblical event but a world legend.

"Well you changed you story..." No, you haven't been listening . You expect to hear what you think you'll hear, so you filter me out as some sort of Bible camp type. Uhhhh went to college, studied science and math, wasn't my best subject but (until recently when I went all flat Earth weirdo) I generally believed in gravity or at least that you can't fly around by having strong enough faith. When you rwead back at my responses, I do accept most evolutionary theories, I do accept most geological history.

What I don't accept is Darwin himself. Guy sailed around the world (probably on daddy's budget), learned nothing that hadn't already been proposed by previous theorists, set out to discredit the others so he could have doctrinal monopoly, and proceeded to push a "might makes right" version of evolution that ignores things like species cooperation and symbiosis in favor of the idea that all creatures compete, which later led to thw Nazi eugenics movement, and other population control systems. Great job, asshole! Thank you for ruining the last century or more.

Hey Farmerman, Roger, Engineer and I are heading over to the A2K Lounge to have a few beers. I haven't heard from Mame, but maybe she can meet us there....I have rogers credit card so brewski's will be on him....Come on over, bring mrs.FM

Also I ******* hate Kindle's spellchecker/autocorrect. It often corrects right words for wrong ones, forcing me to go back and correct words like dustracted. Or words that I fully wrote that it decides to take off a chunk of the word. And it doesn't care actual errors I make.

Edgar, you don't have to drink beer,,,,,,,,,,,,how about some sweet tea?

obert Fitzroy as captain. Fitzroy was convinced that he too would follow Pringles path because Fitzroys family contained a history of depression and suicide. (Aw ****, the fuckin puter lost my first paragraphs about the history of HMS Beagle and its first capn , named Pringle Stokes who commited suicide halfway through Beagles Maiden Voyage))
SO, recognizing these job difficulties Fitzroy convinced the Admiralty to post a kind of 'position with vague status" for someone of scientific background to accompany the captain as a companion. Yes it was unpaid but full of future promise since the Admiralty appreciated such assistances as "serving the Empire" and would often lead to titular bestowal in the persons latr life. Darwin eagerly applied using his own pledged wealth (Money availiable to him as lifetime wealth pledged to him by his father ) Darwin was third on the list and because other applicants dropped out as their own career choices, Darwin won)


Fitzroy nd Darwin , for the most part, got along famously ( the tales of their disagreements was another untruth posted by fake Darwin scholars during the first round of ant-Darwinian thinking). However, in 1834, when Beagle was parked off Chile , Fitzroy cracked and was bed ridden and he resigned command and took up a senior surveyor status and got himself into some rows with the admiralty for buying (unapproved) a sister ship and commissioning more surveyors. Fitzroy, still ill, retook commnd and this resulted in the Beagle remaining in the sea west of Chile for almost nother year.
That was how Darwin got his opportunities for his most famous quests, those into Patgonia , the western slopes of the andes and the Galapagos.

These resulted into Darwin honing his talents for observation, nd experiment that led to his UNIQUE theory (others , including his own grandfather, merely touched on an idea of species transmutation, Darwin thought ahead about things like proof, experimentation, and convincing evidence. Thats why he took another 25 years to do detailed studies on barnacles, beetles, pigeons, and orchids all in order to develop evidence for his own :idea"

Im somehow saddened for people like you to come up with assertions about evolution but you really never show that youve got as detailed a knowledge base as you think youve compiled. Darwins life is loaded with stories of genius consequences from dumb decisions and events , so that his "origin of Species" can be appreciated for the massive idea that it contains. Its one of the best scientific theories to have arisen without benefit of key knowledge like geophysics, more complete fossil records, and genetics(especially that about the genome and transfer of traits that become fixed by a genetic record that we are only now sorting out.

PS Fitzroy ultimately commited suicide shortly after Drwin began his writing. He did provide the means of transport and initial critique for Darwins theory.

Im sorry for the bad writing and spelling.My left hand, besides being de-digitized, has no feeling to my elbow (and partly my right side too. ) If I ue pell check, it too requires some fine finger control so that i often will make worse mistakes as a result of mistakes on spellheck.
sorry, if you cant, for some reason, understand me, just ask the question (without snidely insult like anointed) and I will try to be more clear.

Darwin made a few mistakes in his theory (Many of which he addressed in subsequent editions (He made a total six editions that mostly attempt to clarify to the reader)). He may have been ADHD but still pulled togther one of the greatest (Some say THE greatest) idea of th MILLENIUM

I DUNT DREEENK BBEEEER. Mwah hah hah hah. I LEESEN TO DE CHEELDREN OFF DE NIIITE.

I looked for the lounge. Was too drunk on tea to find it.

These minds from lower animals are the ones that imagined and set up the god industry.

Plantinga never, EVER, gave us the benefit of completing the discussion between Darwin and Graham. He just quote mined the **** out of it and presumed he found the unsolvable dichotomy between naturalism and theology. Kinda bit of a Yawner. As I said most of these arguments were nothing n. Plantinga came up with this in the early 90's I think.
I can only respond that, had Darwin ever once read some of Mendels pioneet work on peaflower genetics, he may have had a totally different POV

Okay, it was Fitzroy.

The point being, most of Darwin's ideas were either simply not new or outright plagiarized.

In his travels, he noticed finches had different traits based on where they lived on the island. Stuff like that. The problem is, this is already a theory. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire found that an island that got separated by some disaster, two different species developed. This theory, known as saltationism, held that environmental factors produce changes. In other words, nothing about this trip showed any signs of "natural selection" but plenty about it showed that Geoffroy was right. In addition, Darwin lifted some of his theories from Darwin (his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin) and some from Lamarck, and some from others like Robert Chambers, Patrick Matthew, Edward Blyth, Alfred Russel Wallace, and many others. He was basically a no-talent hack.

https://creation.com/darwin-plagiarism



So now what about his "survival of the fittest" theory. Who are the fittest, anyway? The biggest and strongest? The ones with the biggest antlers would seem to be the alpha of the species, able to get all the lady deer they want. Only, that one gets their antlers stuck in trees and doesn't get away in time to avoid being hunted. What happened with the Megaloceros giganteus, it was a big alpha buck that can't survive well after forests cover the land post-Ice Age. We have no idea whether survival of the fittest even works.
https://www.ieltsquangbinh.com/extinct-the-giant-deer/

Anyway, animals cannot compete for survival, and expect to survive as a species. Why not? Suppose a volcano erupts. You could go "every man for himself" and try to outrun the volcano. It's an island, and the waters are shark infested. You die. So do alot of people. Or you work together to dig trenches and drive the lava into the sea and away from town. This is the point of things like wingman. Human beings looking out for each other, to help the person procreate, because scoring a hot girl is good for the survival of the species. Natural selection is not natural, and does not secure a species will survive. In fact, traits we think are wonderful, that we breed for (genetics and eugenics schemes) might actually create problems similar to the buck with enormous antlers. Nash observed this from a bar in A Beautiful Mind: there's a hot blond girl and a few other women, and like guys (besides Nash). In the competition scenario, the guys fight over that one woman, it creates a scene, and the other women leave because they are second choice. At best, one man gets the woman, if she also doesn't leave. This "selection" is not natural, and helps nobody. What Nash proposed should be done instead is ignore the blond, and go after the other women, each picking one they want.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d_dtTZQyUM

Darwin didnt get the top "idea of the millennium just because it was an idea. Thats rather naive.
We "had ideas" that continents had been torn away from each other and many folks have speculated on that possibility based on appearances of landmasses opposing wach othr on a map. There were many many popl with that :IDEA". Wegener came up with a few pieces of evidence that fit a reasonable hypothesis of "continental drift" yet h had rally no testabl details that could turn it into a theory. Around WWII , when engineers were hired by our armed forces to develop better equipment to detect bottom laying magnetic marine mines, they discovered 'Magnettic stripes of hardened lavas lined up with mid oceanic ridges, and fossils of same species that coalsesced around radiometric dates that suggested ntire landmasses moved across an ocan, and an early "key fossil" was discovered that tid these landmasses togther. Then geologists bgan mapping similar sediments across the ATlantic (like the Karoo in AFrica wa the same as the Triassic basins of North Amrica, The Appalachians and the SCottish highlands had the same geochemitry of thir rocks, and how "Clam shells" on th south ie and along the top of the Himalayas, opened new evience that proved India slammed up against Southern Asia and the Himalayas rose like someone was pushing a throw rug againt th wall and it folded up into big loops.
The evidence came piling in during the 1960;s n 1970;s (when I started grad school I saw the entire theory of mountain building being overthrown by "New Global Tectonics" (It aint so new anymore")

Darwin was sorta like that. He didnt plagiarize anything because there were many, including Darwin's grandfather who also had "ONLY IDEAS"(his granfathrs ideas were in the form of a bunch of little poems) and we honor the many folks who had them. AFter Darwin rturned from his trip on the Beagle, he spent nearly 25 years working on collecting evidence andclosely studying how artificial selection by pigeon and dog fanciers "created entirely new sub species and varities "of animals. He also looked at how orchids develop their means of attracting pollinating birds and insects, and he studied how barnacles seem to exhibit transmutation in natural populations. 25 yars of painstaking work by a guy who was, by our ides today, was afflicted with ADHD, yet still doggedly pursued his "Hypotheses" until , when he and Wallace were published together in 1859, Darwin had amassed an impressive amount of evidence to give rise to his "idea" being called The THEORY of evolution by natural selection.(Wallace really added very little an actually added nothing to the train of experimentation like Darwin did)
Then, that not being good enough, he edited his work to give us six separate volumes on the damn subject. in Each new edition , he edited out any discrepencies or bad "ideas", and left us with a nascent THEORY (remember, in science, a theory is not a mere hunch as you seem to incorrectly understand)
Gould once said of a theory in science "IT IS A THEORY IF ALL THE KNOWN FACTS SUPPORT IT AN NONE REFUTE IT" or a one of my mentors in the subject said "THE ONLY WAY WE PROVE A THEORY IS BY NOT BEING ABLE TO DISPROVE IT"

Hard steps to climb, especially since he had no clue about genetics

These were mostly hypotheses devloped on a few field observations. As we say we honor thm all as being "progenitors" in modern science (Cept maybe Ersmus, whose poems were not quite scholarly nough to be critiqued handily by Charles). the list of these evolutionary progenitors you presnted is but a sample few bas on publishers space . There are dozens more. My fav is Linnaeus who efined his categories of all spcies as being somehow related. He was among the first to look at the anatomical similarities between elecphants and hyrax.

Youre pproblem is one of casual observation and not in-depth study. Ive tried to xplain this to others and my failing attempts seem to ricochet off the rocks. The Irish elk, was adapted more to open boreal "Savanna" . Plains that were quite common in Pleistocene Doggerland. As the climate changed and oceans rose, the elk were left going to forests for cover, whre the new stone age hunters had easier chances at bagging a few. The elk were xamples of "Critical populational density that ensures rproductiv success " (were it not for zoos here endangered species are "Warehoused" wed see the tiger would have been near extinction wors than it is)

s far as Darwins Finches, youve missed a really key point. Darwin, at that time, didnt really know **** about birds. He thought he was collecting all diffrent bird genera in th Galapagos, with ach one adapted to its own "niche" (our words not his). this would be as he expected with a created world
So he would bag an FEDEX his birds to a British ornithologist Sir John Gould to do the anatomical magic and species Identifications> It was GOULD who told Darwin that these were all FINCHES, and not species of different genera. Darwin had a knock back because he had a totally diffrent idea in his head that was friendlier to a concept of "Special Creation". However, learning that those birds WERE ALL finches made him research transmutation even closer.

Youre exampls arnt easily defne by you. Nature doesnt work that way. Procreation by an alpha male "TYPE" means that usually only one troop member is a breeder, Or in the case mostly in birds, several hundred speices practice monogamy attain by display and special "dance steps"

Jever read The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist--DARWIN, by Desmond and Moore Its a great red nd is fairly presented to ALL readers, be they scientist or not.