Originally posted by loseyourname Postulating the existence of an intelligent designer only begs the question because that designer is necessarily every bit as complex as our world.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evolution and Religion
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by loseyourname Natural selection is most certainly not random. Besides, evolution is the only theory that can explain how complexity might arise from simplicity
Leave a comment:
-
Natural selection is most certainly not random. Besides, evolution is the only theory that can explain how complexity might arise from simplicity, from very nearly nothing. Postulating the existence of an intelligent designer only begs the question because that designer is necessarily every bit as complex as our world. Evolution alone satisfies my conscience. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Nonetheless, as I pointed out, if I want to be able to gain new insight into avenues of research in biology, I will use evolutionary theory as surely as a NASA engineer will use relativity theory to send the shuttle into orbit. It works. There is no questioning that.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname I am going to guess that you have probably read a lot of anti-evolution propaganda that presented falsehoods and misunderstandings that you accepted at face value. I have read the same things.
I see no evidence in believing evolution, ,moreover because of its belief that all change is based on haphazard mutations and pure chance. I am of the persuasion that there is inteligence involved in the world, starting with our very own blueprint, the DNA, to truths of mathematics. But that's just me. To believe it is all chance and random is you.
Leave a comment:
-
If what you said was true, that would be fine. The simple fact is that evolutionary theory does explain all that is observed in the biological world, and it does it damn well. The only conclusion I am left with is that you either don't understand the theory all that well or you don't understand the evidence. I am going to guess that you have probably read a lot of anti-evolution propaganda that presented falsehoods and misunderstandings that you accepted at face value. I have read the same things. I don't know what else I can say to you. I am not a professor and I am not going to sit here and teach you everything about evolution. Suffice it to say, the theory is airtight at the moment. It is not non-falsifiable. If irrefutable evidence is ever found that runs contrary to the theory, then it will be discarded. Until then, it remains perhaps the single most useful theory ever developed. It seemlessly ties together previously disparate disciplines within the biological sciences with an elegance that will only be matched when physicists finally uncover their unified theory of everything. With every new bit of information that is found, particularly in the realm of molecular biology, Darwin's original ideas are made stronger and stronger. My guess is that will continue to be the case. My other guess is that you will die forever obstinate even as the door is slammed shut in your face.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname It isn't a matter of evidence for the theory. There are certain phenomena observed, in this case, everything that is talked about in that article. There are additional observations made as well about the natural. It would thousands of pages to get into them all. However, every last one of them is explained by evolutionary theory. No other theory even presents a semblance of modest competition. When a theory explains every observed fact that well, it is accepted. I fail to see the difficulty here. Only evolution would have produced the world we live in. That has been shown to about the greatest degree of certainty that it is possible to show it to. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? What is it about evolution that so disheartens you that you will cling to this stubborn obstinance as every reasonable, informed person in the world realizes what is pretty damn obvious?
All the article does is present observations in nature, it is simply taken by evolutionary scientists and inserted into the equation of evolution and called "workable" and "explained". Anyone can make a theory or model and fit evidences here and there into the model. With evolution we have a constant reworking of the evidence to fit the said theory theory, as opposed to the theory fitting the evidence. I wouldn't call that scientific.
Leave a comment:
-
It isn't a matter of evidence for the theory. There are certain phenomena observed, in this case, everything that is talked about in that article. There are additional observations made as well about the natural. It would thousands of pages to get into them all. However, every last one of them is explained by evolutionary theory. No other theory even presents a semblance of modest competition. When a theory explains every observed fact that well, it is accepted. I fail to see the difficulty here. Only evolution would have produced the world we live in. That has been shown to about the greatest degree of certainty that it is possible to show it to. Why do you have such a hard time accepting this? What is it about evolution that so disheartens you that you will cling to this stubborn obstinance as every reasonable, informed person in the world realizes what is pretty damn obvious?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by loseyourname I thought you said that if I posted points in favor of evolution, you could refute them. Show that any of what is said in there is wrong.
Now if you divide evolution into macro and micro, then it is obvious there are within species variation. This is nothing new. Going beyond that and claiming those lead to bigger and better changes is simply unsubstantiated, and nothing more than imaginitive.
Leave a comment:
-
I thought you said that if I posted points in favor of evolution, you could refute them. Show that any of what is said in there is wrong.
Leave a comment:
-
That article was interesting none the less a laff. So much for a Skeptical Inquirer, if it is going to be skeptical only towards creation and not evolution. That to me isn't much of skepticism, but rather ideological.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: