+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 54
Latest: abrogard
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16302
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 10
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 13055 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33107
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« on: October 16, 2013, 04:06:19 pm »
Eddie said,
The problem we have here, this "fight" between science and religion ( not just over evolution...evolution is just one battle in a broader war)  comes from a failure on the part of some religious people to understand that the great religious books of the past are full of magical explanations for things. Not because the writers wanted to make **** up, but because they just lacked clear knowledge. And since many religious folks feel that whatever version of their Bible or other Holy Book is the literal, infallible, final, Word of God, they can't reconcile new data with the magical explanations of the past.

They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what science is finding out...and since science has progressed very rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, and requires an increasing level of imagination, with the alternative being a rejection of science, because...well, it's easier and cleaner and requires No Thinking.

Well said!  :emthup:

That said, the Procrustean bed many fundies have made for themselves applies to the evolutionary true believing fundamentalists that view any questioning of Darwin's flawed theory as sacrilege worthy of scorn and ridicule. IOW, these "scientists" are rejecting the scientific method when new scientific discoveries in
1. cell machinery,
2. multiple symbiotic relationships in widely divergent species with no "evolutionary: common ancestor,
3. fossil record showing no transitional life forms (unless the definition of "transitional" becomes rather pliant in its magical thinking story telling imagination - speculation without evidence is not science - calling "evidence" an interpretation of fossils as transitional life forms is an opinion, not evidence),
4. sudden appearance of related species genera of the same family in the fossil record
5. dating assumptions in rock strata despite several issues with dating methods (one dating method showing radically different age than others yet the one producing the more "acceptable" (tens to hundreds millions of years older REQUIRED for ACCEPTABLE  natural selection) age being the one given "scientific" credibility, etc.

What I'm saying is that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Darwin himself and famous evolutionist scientists like Dawkins admit the following:

Darwin's worry

Dawkins on the  Cambrian "sudden planting" of many COMPLETE life forms

Fossil Record Scientific Reality without Storytelling and Magical Thinking

Fatal flaw in Theory of Evolution envisioned by Darwin

And what is the modern response to all the above by the alleged hard boiled scientists that allegedly are not tied to religious superstition and fairy tails with flights of imaginative fancy about this, that and the other came to be?

They come up with even more improbable scenarios that boggle the mind of any mathematician performing probability and statistics; I.E. "CO-evolution to produce symbiotic mechanisms IN A SINGLE life cycle of a species!" (Millions of years don't apply because, according to evolutionary theory, if an "evolutionary advantage" mutation expresses itself in a species (In Zoology I was taught that having two penises was an evolutionary advantage for the crocodile. I suppose they figured one of them could be used as a fish lure or he still could procreate if another crock ate his in a fight - that sure sounds like opinion and story telling rather that scientific evidence to me. ;) it is necessary for that beneficial mutation to begin to be used or it will be "selected out". Do you see the problem here? The other side of the symbiosis HAS to connect up in an extremely short period of time or one side gets lost.

This is a scientific Procrustean bed they are trying to stuff the Theory of Evolution in by calling on the CO-evolution magical thinking. Why is it magical and unscientific? Because CO-evolution without intelligent design requires several times more time than the universe age. Yes. I know, some will say that then maybe he universe IS 100 billion years or so old. They'll say ANYTHING to avoid giving the "GOD DID IT" hypothesis and scientific credibility whatsoever.

Your statements apply correctly to the Goose (the fundies). This is how they ALSO apply to the Gander (evolution true believers).

In regard the Evolutionists:"they can't reconcile new data with the magical explanations of the past (see Darwin's worries above).

They are constantly having to struggle to fit new data into an old story line that doesn't seem to be compatible with what science is finding out...and since science has progressed very rapidly over recent generations, it's getting harder to do, (see 1 through 5 above) and requires an increasing level of imagination, (see CO-evolutionary symbiosis and dual crocodile penises) with the alternative being a rejection of science, because...well...

they will be forced to go the intelligent design route and believe our biosphere was put here by ET scientists doing a science experiment or, horror of horrors, the God of all creation.

Evolutionist in the face of proven Creation:

I'm a sort of fundy but I agree with you that there is a lot of non-scientific imagination in the Bible that does NOTHING to reduce the veracity of the message from God to us about how to behave if we want to reach our full potential. I basically could care less if God did it through evolution, mud puddles with Darwinian and Einsteinian brain cells thrown in one day when God had nothing better to do or if the ETs God made long before he made us are running a science experiment.  :icon_mrgreen:

But if people who claim to have the scientific method enshrined right up there with the tablets Moses was given are going to tell me they will ONLY support evidence based on the scientific method, they should **** can the Theory of Evolution and be ready to **** can anything else that doesn't "fit" into the Procrustean Bed called the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise, they are as guilty of turf protecting, non-thinking, BULLSHIT as the overly zealous fundies.

I will not EVER accept science fiction as science fact. It's time to move on to something more credible than "the mud puddle PLUS a few billion years equals the biosphere". 

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 05:50:08 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 04:40:13 pm

Money by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 03:52:43 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 03:44:43 pm

Beauty and Grace of Animals in Nature by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 02:34:41 pm

Fossil Fuels: Degraded Democracy and Profit Over Planet Pollution by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 01:42:22 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 12:44:26 pm

Pollution by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 12:06:40 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
June 15, 2021, 11:56:01 am

Wind Power by AGelbert
June 12, 2021, 11:20:57 pm