20
   

Is the theory of evolution correct?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Apr, 2013 07:11 pm
@farmerman,
Yes, and bummer.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Apr, 2013 07:59 pm
@roger,
Darwin, in his third edition of "The Origin..." credited all those who had gone before who had, in some fashion had thought the thoughts ofevolution. AMong 38 of these folks, he credits Aristotle and , much to Darwin's discredit, Aristotle was actually hauling off to clobber Eritosthenes for thinking that animals "changed over time". What Aristotle was doing was setting up a straw man argument using a pile of "transmutational -what if's". Actually ARistotle was a grand vizeer of "IMMUTABILITY".
So Darwin screwed up in his accolade list.

Although he did get it right about the argument of "pro evolutionists" Buffon/St Hillaire/Lamarck versus CUVIER. (Who was as sneaky a prick as Thomas Jefferson in claiming false beliefs whenever the Pope was in earshot)
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 24 Apr, 2013 08:00 pm
@roger,
Darwin, in his third edition of "The Origin..." credited all those who had gone before who had, in some fashion had thought the thoughts ofevolution. AMong 38 of these folks, he credits Aristotle and , much to Darwin's discredit, Aristotle was actually hauling off to clobber Eritosthenes for thinking that animals "changed over time". What Aristotle was doing was setting up a straw man argument using a pile of "transmutational -what if's". Actually ARistotle was a grand vizeer of "IMMUTABILITY".
So Darwin screwed up in his accolade list.

Although he did get it right about the argument of "pro evolutionists" Buffon/St Hillaire/Lamarck versus CUVIER. (Who was as sneaky a prick as Thomas Jefferson in claiming false beliefs whenever the Pope
was in earshot). Jefferson wasnt wary of the Pope he was just a sneky two faced sumbitch whenever he was lying about Adams (and several other points but thats not the subject of this thread is it?)
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Apr, 2013 08:07 pm
@farmerman,
Nods to your knowledge.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 11:21 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
We're working here in an area where Science peters out and Intuition takes over
Quote:
Maybe in your mind.
At least


Quote:
Science has developed a very good theory about evolution that all facts and evidence fits and nothing refutes.
Yes I agree, and I accept it absolutely. I simply speculate there's still more to it once we better understand the Big Picture


Quote:
We use it every day in medicine, agriculture and exploration for minerals (you may not believe it but its true).
Of coure it's true. As an erstwhile rockhound I see it happening today. My aspect of its appreciation doesn't conflict with evolution in any manner whatever

In fact I see the entire cycling of the Universe as one of evolution, from the infinitely massive, dense particle of zero dimension through the Big Bang, the Big Expansion with its attendant evolution of mater and Man, the Cooling Dispersal, The Quiet Reversal, the Big Crunch, then back to the Tiny Massive Particle; ad infinitum

Quote:
If there werent such a robust theory in action, then perhaps your "intuition" may have room.you just have to spend more time in understanding it
I've always thought I understand it in general terms if not all the technical detail. My intuition accepts it absolutely. My critics merely misinterpret my position

Quote:
Though I can't understand why hereabout it's considered such a threat

Quote:
Why should anyone just lend a hand at promoting more ignorance.
Man, hope you don't mean me. I'm for enlightenment of all sorts.

Quote:
If you wish to join the anti-evolutionists of the A2K crowd, you would probably be welcomed .
Of course I don't, unless as an Associate Member but With Reservations. But I'd like to present a sort of "alternative" that might, if somewhat haltingly, satisfy at least part of both camps

Quote:
Just remember, they havent yet presented one piece of evidence in support of their "belief system".
Like I said we're in an area where Science trails off. Just as you, I question the anthropomorphic aspects of "their belief system" except as symbolism

Quote:
You seem to want to understand things but you always avoid the obvious data that explains it.
Not at all. Where have I taken issue, eg, with evolution

Quote:
I would not, for one, spend time making up (kinda) ridiculous queries as to whether evolution is valid,
I recall having fielded no such query

Quote:
youre probably not gonna get support for your stance.
I get the feeling hereabout that I'll get little support no matter what my stance

Quote:
Then, to top it off, you wonder why your stance isnt embraced by others.
My "stance" is interpreted as an argument contrary to "their" position. But it's not, it hopefully incorporates apparently conflicting points of view


Quote:
its really not science thats settled by a debate. There are these biological facts that get in your way
I dispute none of these biological facts

I merely maintain--forgive any repetition--presently discouraged by semantic if not logical blockages, factors of a wider scope under consideration by the apodictical existential pantheist will eventually underlay a kind of consolidation

…in a sense maintining that a concept yet unstated as underlying the intuitive, largely subconscious hope that there's something more to the Entire Megillah than the dreary, meaningless, random bouncing of particles off one another, ending in the dispersal of objects and particles approaching absolute zero while accelerating apart forever, might be more clearly demonstrated in terms yet to be invented

The problem as I see it is a kind of dualism where ultimately only "one side" prevails, as in freewill v determinism…that whether or not She creates anything, or even exists, will be relegated to mere semantic concern

In short we hen't yet developed language adequate to the task of representing the all-encompassing non-dualistic

On the other hand, alas, maybe I'm just fullovit
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 11:47 am
@dalehileman,
Quote:
Quote:
I simply speculate there's still more to it once we better understand the Big Picture
Maybe you should more carefully edit your posts (content-wise, Im no authority on spelling as you know). You DO come across as one who wants it both ways without investing any time in understanding the scientific. I get annoyed at folks who preach these statements as "heres where science falls down" when it was merely a matter of not fully understanding the carefully discovereed evidence.

It doesnt make you come cross as a strong spokesman for your doubts, because, they really should be verbalized from a specific to a general condition.




for exampleWe dont see the evolution of bats, we only see them in their final form >THEREFORE bats came to be, fully formed and, are therefore, an example of ID(intelligent design)

Id then have someone who knows (we used to have 2 honest to goodness geneticists on the boards but they got the shits of the morons like gungasnake) and Id ask them to explain the genetic homology among species of the same Linnean FAMILY . WAe have really good genetic comparisons between bats and skunks and we DO have a very good linneage of evolution for mustelids. Someone who knows that stuff could make a good argument about "Not seeing the full fossil parade of a species means nothing.We can eassily compare the evolution of "common ancestor species"

So far your pantheist sojourns into science disciplines isnt compelling at all. All you are doing is

1. I am ignorant of some science point critical to understanding and feeling totally accepting of evolutionary theories

2. Rather than investing time in learning more about the sources of my ignorance, I will instead, declare that "MAGIC" intervenes on that one point

3. Thus, if it happens once , then "Magic" is a major component of Pantheistic evolution


Ill just have another beer while I read my Kelly, Shubin, Ruse, or Eugenie Scott. They dont cop out and claim that " evolutionary data gaps" are possible insertion points for the divine. They would urge us to "Keep fuckin studying our Darwin". Maybe they would say it more gently than I.
dalehileman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 01:49 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Maybe you should more carefully edit your posts (content-wise, Im no authority on spelling as you know).
Alas amen Man, I keep telling myself--go back Dale, check your spelling

Quote:
You DO come across as one who wants it both ways without investing any time in understanding the scientific.
As I might have mentioned, I thought I had had a pretty good background in the Scientific and have no issue with it, whatever. Any conflict perhaps resides in the mind of the participant. But maybe not, you're right, I'm a basket case

Quote:
Maybe you should more carefully edit your posts
Doubtlessly

Quote:
(content-wise, Im no authority on spelling as you know).
Me nuther

Quote:
I get annoyed at folks who preach these statements as "here's where science falls down"
Me too

Quote:
It doesnt make you come cross as a strong spokesman for your doubts,
I don't consider myself an outspoken spokesman either for my doubts or spoken convictions; though speaking of spokesmen, always had hoped them well-spoken, so to speak

Quote:
because, they really should be verbalized from a specific to a general condition.
That's kind of like saying, "You should be more convincing," and I'm sure it's true, I should

Quote:
for exampleWe dont see the evolution of bats, we only see them in their final form >THEREFORE bats came to be, fully formed and, are therefore, an example of ID(intelligent design)
Good Gosh I hope I never conveyed any such assertion

However I'd like to explore the conditions that made bats' evolution a reality, tho I'd have to agree with the theists, there seems to be a sort of "plan." Note however I said "seems"

Quote:
I'd then have someone who knows…...to explain the genetic homology among species of the same Linnean FAMILY .
I'd have to withdraw into my little corner, just not equipped to deal with such minute detail, hafta take your word for it. Very impressed by your literacy and obvious intellect tho

Quote:
We have really good genetic comparisons between bats and skunks
I'd suppose so

Quote:
and we DO have a very good linneage of evolution for mustelids.
I can only suppose also in this instance

Quote:
Someone who knows that stuff could make a good argument about "Not seeing the full fossil parade of a species means nothing.We can eassily compare the evolution of "common ancestor species"
Forgive me Man if I skip that one with exculpation based upon uncertainties in the reciprocity of quotation

Quote:
So far your pantheist sojourns into science disciplines isn't compelling at all.
I apologize most profusely

Quote:
All you are doing is

1. I am ignorant of some science point critical to understanding and feeling totally accepting of evolutionary theories
Again my most profound apologies Man, but that one leaves me in a linguistic quagmire of grammatical bewilderment

Quote:
2. Rather than investing time in learning more about the sources of my ignorance, I will instead, declare that "MAGIC" intervenes on that one point
I'd respond if I understood the point

Quote:
3. Thus, if it happens once , then "Magic" is a major component of Pantheistic evolution
My first reaction was, "If what happens once," but I assure you that Magic plays no special part in our concept, which emphasizes nature over the supernatural

Quote:
Ill just have another beer
Like to join you, as Recording Secretary of The Greater Southwest Beer-Tasting Society I'm yours as [email protected]

I do however lean away from many earlier domestic brews

Quote:
while I read my Kelly, Shubin, Ruse, or Eugenie Scott. They dont cop out and claim that " evolutionary data gaps" are possible insertion points for the divine.
I don 't recall either having made any such claim

Quote:
They would urge us to "Keep fuckin studying our Darwin".
I support Darwin wholeheartedly

Quote:
Maybe they would say it more gently than I.e no quarrel with it
Nor I

Pleasure Man chatting with ya


0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 01:52 pm
http://blog.stackoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/then-a-miracle-occurs-cartoon.png
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 01:59 pm
Frankly, i believe a Missouri mule would be more amenable to correction.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Thu 25 Apr, 2013 02:48 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You would do well to take note that Dale is just as stuffed full of sh*t as the proverbial Christmas goose.


I'm pretty sure that most folk use bread stuffing, Set. But whatever floats your and Beth's boat is fine by me.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 08:04 am
@Setanta,
I see now that he doesnt want any discussion. He just likes being a wise ass. OH WELL.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:02 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I see now that he doesnt want any discussion. He just likes being a wise ass. OH WELL.


My good Lord but you assholes are hypocrites! You've just described yourself, Farmer. You've just described Setanta. You've just described Roger and countless other here at A2K.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:15 am
re JTT:
To the contrary. Farmer and Setanta, hair-trigger aside, are most able discussants. Of course the thing is that they have the facts at their fingertips and tend to demolish those who don't pretty quickly. On the other hand, you did describe yourself pretty well. You don't want discussion, you want tt twist any topic to the solitary two you want to hector us about, and then insist we agree with you.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:42 am
@MontereyJack,
Yeah, MJ, we saw just what an able "discussant" Farmer was when he recently tried to buffalo someon on their language use. Though he had me on 'ignore' [ another likely story from these serial liars], he folded like a tent when Frank Apisa alerted him that he and his tripe was being discussed.

By Farmer's own admission, in that thread, he admitted he was ignorant about English grammar and how English works. "facts at his fingertips" such utter bullshit!

Setant fled the scene years ago when he mistakenly tried to advance his nonsense in the Pet Peeves threads. "most able discussants", what a joke. They won't discuss topics that they haven't a clue on and those topics are legion.

Quote:
You don't want discussion, you want tt twist any topic to the solitary two you want to hector us about, and then insist we agree with you.


I've never insisted that anyone agree with me. I told Setanta, despite his constant whining, that I thought it grand that people post whatever they pleased. All they had to do was be prepeared to defend their thoughts. As you can see, the Pet Peeves are no more. There was no defense.

Same on American, whatever you wanna call it, war crimes, hegemony, terrorism, brutality, viciousness, rogue nation, it all boils down to the same thing. And nobody discusses it because all they want to do is wish it away but the fact just won't let 'em.

As Monterey jack said, jtt is right about most of the things he says about the things US governments have done.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:49 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I've never insisted that anyone agree with me.
That's what I keep sayin' JTT but nobody hears me
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Apr, 2013 11:57 am
@dalehileman,
I know, Dale. Setanta and Farmer are too busy watching themselves preen.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 27 Apr, 2013 11:52 am
@MontereyJack,
Thanks for the compliment MJ, I can only assume JTT is on one of its fatuous rants about my impatience with Dale trying to occupy all sites in a debate . I can only hope that it (JTT) recovers enough in this life to lead a semi stable existence.
I doubt if it has much use to society other than as a squeegy man
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Apr, 2013 11:19 pm
Micro Evolution - easily understood and replicated. Often referred to as 'adaptation'
Then, the big leap.
Macro Evolution- more difficult to grasp and impossible to replicate. Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.
rosborne979
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 04:46 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.

Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Apr, 2013 05:09 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Vociferous defenders of this hypothesis seem very much akin to the typical religionist.

Only "religionists" with weak arguments say that.
So, there are religionists with strong arguments?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:03:46