1
   

How can you not believe in evolution? Also ideas on Genesis

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 12:50 pm
Dok, Wandel is not "new."
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:31 pm
wandeljw wrote:
real life,
Why are you using a subtopic of one scientific discipline to criticize a subtopic in a different scientific discipline?


If findings from one scientific discipline can be used in support of another, why can they not be used to question another discipline?

Is it only a one way street?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:33 pm
Yes, it's a one-way street. It must have "relevance."
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 07:36 pm
Either way, relevance needs to be shown.

What relevance does thermodynamics have for evolutionary theory, real life?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 08:00 pm
The laws of thermodynamics apply and are relevant to all systems, are they not?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 10:06 pm
real life wrote:
The laws of thermodynamics apply and are relevant to all systems, are they not?


Can you be more specific about how this relates to evolutionary theory?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 11:14 pm
I would like to know if you agree that the 2nd Law applies to all systems; or if you share the opinion of many other evolutionists, that the 2nd Law does NOT apply to 'open systems' , and hence to ANY system in the universe.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 11:21 pm
There's no such thing as an evolutionist. there are simply normal human beings, and screwed up freaks like you.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Nov, 2006 11:44 pm
from http://dict.die.net/evolutionist/

Quote:


Definition: evolutionist

Search dictionary for

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Evolutionist \Ev`o*lu"tion*ist\, n.
1. One skilled in evolutions.

2. one who holds the doctrine of evolution, either in biology
or in metaphysics. --Darwin.
emphasis mine




from http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/evolutionist

Quote:
evolution
One entry found for evolution.
Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
- evo·lu·tion·ari·ly /-sh&-"ner-&-lE/ adverb
- evo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- evo·lu·tion·ism /-sh&-"ni-z&m/ noun
- evo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun or adjective
emphasis mine

from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolutionist

Quote:
ev‧o‧lu‧tion‧ist  /ˌɛvəˈluʃənɪst or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun
1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
2. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
-adjective Also, ev‧o‧lu‧tion‧is‧tic.
3. of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4. believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, esp. in biology.
[Origin: 1855-60; evolution + -ist]
emphasis mine

from http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1758

Quote:
The Darwin Medal (1890)[/color]

A silver medal is given biennially (in even years) in reward for work of acknowledged distinction in the broad area of biology in which Charles Darwin worked, notably in evolution, population biology, organismal biology and biological diversity. A gift of £1000 accompanies the medal.

In both 1982 and 2002, the medal was awarded to a husband and wife team. In 1982 this was John and Yolande Heslop-Harris.The 2006 Darwin medal was awarded to Professor Nick Barton for his major and extensive contributions to evolutionary biology, characterised by the application of sophisticated mathematical analysis but focussed on developing biological understanding rather than mathematical niceties.

'...it is of course a tremendous thrill to have been awarded a medal named after Charles Darwin, the greatest evolutionist of us all. The medal has been awarded to many very eminent people in the field, with whom I would hardly compare myself in terms of level of achievement.' Brian Charlesworth (Winner, 2000)

emphasis mine


hi Wilso,

Not sure why some evolutionists take exception to the term. It is a perfectly acceptable word. Nothing pejorative about it (unlike the language in so many of your posts. I generally try to refrain from petty insults)

Care to explain what bothers you so about it, and why you can't seem to discuss anything civilly?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 08:54 am
real life wrote:
I would like to know if you agree that the 2nd Law applies to all systems; or if you share the opinion of many other evolutionists, that the 2nd Law does NOT apply to 'open systems' , and hence to ANY system in the universe.


The laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living matter. It would take a lot of convoluted word games to apply the same laws to biological organisms.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 09:31 am
wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
I would like to know if you agree that the 2nd Law applies to all systems; or if you share the opinion of many other evolutionists, that the 2nd Law does NOT apply to 'open systems' , and hence to ANY system in the universe.


The laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living matter. It would take a lot of convoluted word games to apply the same laws to biological organisms.


Actually, the thermodynamic laws apply to everything. It's just that they don't apply as RL is interpreting them to apply. It's not the second law which is in conflict with evolution (or anything else), it's just RL's misguided interpretation which is in conflict.

RL has placed his invalid interpretation of evolution against his invalid interpretation of thermodynamics and asked us to defend one of them for him. It's the one trick pony on center stage again.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 11:10 pm
wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
I would like to know if you agree that the 2nd Law applies to all systems; or if you share the opinion of many other evolutionists, that the 2nd Law does NOT apply to 'open systems' , and hence to ANY system in the universe.


The laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living matter. It would take a lot of convoluted word games to apply the same laws to biological organisms.


Did the laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living chemicals prior to the time that life supposedly was spontaneously generated on Earth?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 04:49 am
real life wrote:
Did the laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living chemicals prior to the time that life supposedly was spontaneously generated on Earth?


To be honest, real life, I am not qualified to comment on that.

I rely on experts when reading about a specialized topic. I also feel it is better to read more than one source on any topic.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 12:43 pm
wandeljw wrote:
real life wrote:
Did the laws of thermodynamics apply to non-living chemicals prior to the time that life supposedly was spontaneously generated on Earth?


To be honest, real life, I am not qualified to comment on that.

I rely on experts when reading about a specialized topic. I also feel it is better to read more than one source on any topic.


Thanks, wandeljw.

Feel free to consult as many sources as you wish.

I would be very interested in your answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 09:56:06