Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

BDoug brings up a relatively good point about how man evolved from primates to homo sapiens; millions of years.

0 Replies

Here's a bunch of Good stuff

0 Replies

Now, I'd like to see the evidence (at least 10 of them) provided by the "creationists/IDers."

0 Replies

Their only one seems to revolve around the statement that "you werent there so how do you know it happened. Therefore Creation is just as reasonable a tale"

The other nine are just variations of that one.

0 Replies

The thing I hate is how ID/creationists believe that an arguement by incredulty will make ID/Creation true; that we must default to it. Other alternatives exist.

I can make one now.

The universe does NOT exist and for that matter neither do we. What we are experiencing is a construct of the all the information in existance. We mostly experiance a similar inturpretations as a sort of consensus. Ideas, and data form our individuality and separate our consruct from another's. Given matter, these constructs and inforamtion combine and form recognizable geometries and follow a governing set of rules, say Math and Physics. the exchange of information from one constuct to another is language. Language is localized by a sample space population of constructs and is encoded in such a way that makes it difficult for oher constructs to recieve.

It's as good as any alternative. I could devote my life to disproving BB or evolution, but disproving them wouldn't prove the above nor would it prove ID/Creationism.

0 Replies

Yeah, I've a lots of fun proposing various types of alien interventionism as an (arguably) more viable alternative to Christian ID spewage. After all as cliché as it undoubtedly now is, one of "Clarke's three laws" states: "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

0 Replies

That's actually the ID-ers' escape clause, when they try to make the case that it's not religion they're purveying to us, "Well, nowhere do we say that it HAS to be god that's doing the designing--it COULD be aliens." Riiiigggghhhtt. Seriously that's what some of them have proposed. Not that they seriously believed it wasn't really some god they were thinking of as the mysterious designer.

0 Replies

username wrote:

That's actually the ID-ers' escape clause, when they try to make the case that it's not religion they're purveying to us, "Well, nowhere do we say that it HAS to be god that's doing the designing--it COULD be aliens." Riiiigggghhhtt. Seriously that's what some of them have proposed.

I'm more inclined to believe that it's aliens personally. At least that scenerio seems possible.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Darwin graduated from Cambridge University where he concentrated on religious studies but also studied with England's leading expert on entymology. After graduation he worked as a naturalist and traveled for eight years on the H.M.S. Beagle before he came up with his theory of natural selection. He then waited 20 years and corresponded with other naturalists before publishing his theory on natural selection.

The article posted by Real Life was written by "Do-While Jones" who was trained in electrical engineering and worked on radar signals, microcomputers, and software development.

It seems Darwin spent a great deal more time and study on natural science than "Do-While Jones". Why would "Do-While Jones" be qualified to critique natural science?

So Darwin took the equivalent of a few courses in biology and that made him an expert? C'mon wandeljw.

Let's just admit that there's a double standard that is held by the evolutionists, and call it what it is.

0 Replies

What made Charles Darwin an "expert" is very simple; all subsequent studies about evolution has been confirmed. Charles was only the primary source that introduced the idea to the world. If his theory about evolution was wrong, it would have died a long time ago, but it didn't.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
Darwin graduated from Cambridge University where he concentrated on religious studies but also studied with England's leading expert on entymology. After graduation he worked as a naturalist and traveled for eight years on the H.M.S. Beagle before he came up with his theory of natural selection. He then waited 20 years and corresponded with other naturalists before publishing his theory on natural selection.

The article posted by Real Life was written by "Do-While Jones" who was trained in electrical engineering and worked on radar signals, microcomputers, and software development.

It seems Darwin spent a great deal more time and study on natural science than "Do-While Jones". Why would "Do-While Jones" be qualified to critique natural science?

So Darwin took the equivalent of a few courses in biology and that made him an expert? C'mon wandeljw.

That is not what I said. Before Darwin published his theory of natural selection he studied entymology at Cambridge, worked as a naturalist for eight years on the H.M.S. Beagle, and then spent an additional twenty years collecting data and corresponding with other naturalists. Thirty years of specialized experience made Darwin far more qualified than "Do-While Jones" in the area of natural science. (Jones had specialized in electrical engineering and computer sciences.)

0 Replies

Before Darwin was employed as a naturalist (the period of time in which he purportedly conceived the idea for his theory and collected the primary evidence which he used to advance it), he had completed the equivalent of a few courses in biology.

That was the extent of his educational background in biology. That is what I said.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Before Darwin was employed as a naturalist (the period of time in which he purportedly conceived the idea for his theory and collected the primary evidence which he used to advance it), he had completed the equivalent of a few courses in biology.

That was the extent of his educational background in biology. That is what I said.

Darwin conceived of natural selection after working for 8 years as a naturalist. Before publishing that idea, Darwin spent another 20 years collecting data and corresponding with other naturalists.

0 Replies

So then, what (other than a few courses of biology) qualified him to be employed as a naturalist in the first place?

0 Replies

A university education.

You keep harping on "a few courses in biology." In fact, in the early 19th century, no one offered any courses in "biology." If one wished to do, one could elect to study "natural philosophy" with a qualified don. A certain amount of "natural philosophy" would have been included in any University of Edinburgh education--Darwin, however, elected to go further into the subject than did other undergraduates. He originally studied medicine, and then, in his second year, he joined a student society dedicated to studying natural history, and took tutorials from Robert Grant, then the leading Lamarckian at the University of Edinburgh. He also studied geographic stratigraphy and was trained in plant classification. It was on the insistence of his father that he left the University of Edinburgh in 1827 to study at Cambridge so as to qualify for the clergy. There, he studied with the local expert in botany and natural history to the extent that he became famous among undergraduates for the time he spent with Dr. Henslow. When he graduated in 1831, he just barely passed his oral examination for theology, but he placed tenth overall on a list of 178.

To put it in perspective, your boy "Do-While Jones" is an electrical engineer and a computer programmer. They are a dime a dozen. Darwin, as a university graduate who had concentrated in the study of medicine and then natural history, was one of a handful of specially educated men in 1831.

I have no doubt, though, that you'll continue to repeat your "a few course in biology" canard--i'm used to seeing you repeat the same horseshit over and over again, as though that will make it so.

0 Replies

I think it was William Hewell that even coinde the term "scientist" in the Bridgewater Chronicles of about 1830 (something) Scientists were, in that day, mostly amateurs (amateur originally meant that someone pusued knwledge for the "love" of it).

Actual coursework in Darwins day ws limited mostly by association, experience, and pursuit of a subject through personal study. Somewhere (we credit Gaston du Lac,with coining the word "geology"), the actual sciences and scientists as professionals rather than amateurs began by Universities granting degrees. Lyell, as we stated, started in Law, associated with another field geologist, and stidied on his own. Finally, Lyell was appointed professor of the newly minted department of Geology at Oxford.

RL's point has as much relevance as does his reminding us that Erasmus Darwin (Sr) was a worker in the field of evolution, when he was a composer of ribald verse(and a sometimes country doctor)

0 Replies

Lets just say that Darwin was sufficiently educated to arrive at the theory of natural selection, which, when viewed in todays techy environment, is simple enough that it seems fairly self evident. But in Darwins day, it required the compilation of all the evidence that is irrefutable within our natural world.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

I think it was William Hewell that even coinde the term "scientist" in the Bridgewater Chronicles of about 1830 (something) Scientists were, in that day, mostly amateurs (amateur originally meant that someone pusued knwledge for the "love" of it).

Actual coursework in Darwins day ws limited mostly by association, experience, and pursuit of a subject through personal study. Somewhere (we credit Gaston du Lac,with coining the word "geology"), the actual sciences and scientists as professionals rather than amateurs began by Universities granting degrees. Lyell, as we stated, started in Law, associated with another field geologist, and stidied on his own. Finally, Lyell was appointed professor of the newly minted department of Geology at Oxford.

RL's point has as much relevance as does his reminding us that Erasmus Darwin (Sr) was a worker in the field of evolution, when he was a composer of ribald verse(and a sometimes country doctor)

Never said that Erasmus was a 'worker in the field', but simply that he and his family were well aware of the idea of evolution long before Charles boarded the Beagle.

The idea that Charles had a Eureka moment AFTER collecting scientific evidence, and suddenly came upon the theory of evolution (or developed it after many years of thought afterward) is laughable.

Trendy intellectuals in Darwin's day believed in evolution WITHOUT evidence, holding to the idea for many years before Charles sailed south.

Charles' tailoring of his evidence to interpret it as supporting evolution should come as no surprise.

The surprise is that so many to this day still see different shapes of beaks as 'firm evidence' of evolution.

Do different shapes of human noses also give firm evidence of evolution? After all, a larger nose may enable a man to inhale more oxygen and thus be more able to physically labor.

Or a big nose might be a subtle sexual attraction , and thus a benefit tending toward producing more offspring because.........well, never mind . There's already people who believe that nonsense as well. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

real life wrote:

[Do different shapes of human noses also give firm evidence of evolution? After all, a larger nose may enable a man to inhale more oxygen and thus be more able to physically labor.

Or a big nose might be a subtle sexual attraction , and thus a benefit tending toward producing more offspring because.........well, never mind . There's already people who believe that nonsense as well.

Or a big nose might be a way to please this mystical being with supernatural powers that we call God. God likes people in different shapes because he likes diversity. Or a big nose could be a test from God to see how a perons deals with the challenges a big nose can bring........well, never mind. There's already people who believe THAT nonsense as well.

0 Replies

real, Nobody even suggested that Charles had a Eureka moment. Where do you get this stuff?

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know