A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

I agree it was not as sophisticated as it is now but then again no new idea every was. But the discoverer of the cell knew it was complex from the very start. He never thought it “just a blob”. He just did not know how complex it was. In the same way we could say the initial Theory of Evolution gave no indication of how complex DNA was. It is only when we actually understand the complex mechanisms of evolution we see how beautifully simple the idea is. But it was never “just a simple idea”.

[UnseenParticipant]

Simon Paynton wrote:

@earlesanborn – it’s best if you can just summarise the points you want to make, succinctly, in your own words. It is much more interesting for other people to read like that as well. There is no need for mountains of detail. If there is, then you need to summarise the detail in your own words, so as to make it understandable for the rest of us.

If Earle can’t put it in plain and easily-understood language, he probably doesn’t understand it himself.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  Unseen.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@earlesanborn – “The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it.”

– some mutations are beneficial.

[Earle SanbornParticipant]

Gents, got the message about putting whole articles on the site. I just thought it was best to leave my opinion out of it and let the science of 2018 speak for itself. No more long articles- but I do reserve the right to copy/paste salient quotes or sentences. Regards and have a great weekend

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Earle – the post you published is from an old website and referring to articles and books from the 1980’s and earlier. Fred Hoyle, an atheist who coined the term “Big Bang”, believed in the “Steady State” of the Universe back in the 1950’s and 60’s. None of it is 2018 Science.  Half of what you posted was under the heading “Mutations” and displays a completely erroneous understanding of what mutation means in the genetic sense. Creationism is not Science.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

[Earle SanbornParticipant]

Davis, Pope Beanie, et all. It’s not helpful and pretty discourteous to compare a “Creationist with a bowling ball” for discussion purpose. I’m pretty certain we each have our own histories, challenges, wishes, wants, needs, and desires, in our never ending quest for the truth. And unlike Pontius Pilate- there is knowable truth out there.

Yes, it is true I copy/pasted from Darwinism Refuted- just found that site about a week ago. At the end of the day, no one can explain, articulate, or argue someone else to believe in “God” or not in “God”. Lastly, if you understand the following you will begin to understand a bit where I’m coming from:

John 6:44 “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” and later in John 6:65 “And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

The spirit of God is the only thing that can move a man from whatever position he currently is in. I’ll say again, not one person in Bible “ran” toward God- most tried to run away and some were chosen (Apostles). We, man, have a seeming natural aversion and even hatred for “God”. It is not surprising in the least that now days- man will chose to go after any and all things except the God of the Bible. Mankind is an unrealized antithesis for the one true God- they’ll make gods of wood, metal, paper, plastic, even put themselves as God and judge of things. Today more than ever everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. No surprise at all the UN nations as a whole hates the current nation Israel (really the descendants of Judah) because they keep the Sabbath. The world will pick any other day or no day as the Sabbath is a sign between the Everlasting one and his creation. You don’t need to go to “church” to keep the Sabbath. Got to go- no more copying and pasting

 

[DavisModerator]

Earle Sanborn wrote:

Gents, got the message

Earl if you got the message, then you would also start dealing with all of our replies to your fake science and badly interpreted science. That isn’t a bowling ball..it is a ball of bullshit, no, a ball of verbal diarrhea.

Imagine if I went to a Christian forum and wrote a 10 paragraph long post full of contentious claims, and then everyone in that forum diligently read it, chose not to kick me out, and replied to each claim with a rational argument.

Now imagine I just ignore all of that and then type out another 10 paragraph recycling most of the first post and adding even more new contentious claims with no verifiable sources.

I would be pretty surprised if they hadn’t booted me. But lets say again, I ignored all of their methodical reding and protest to some of the claims. And then posted rambling nonsense a third time…you could be positive they would give me an ultimatum:

1. Stop the argument bombing (overloading the forum with dozens of contentious claims)

2. Stop cut and pasting (you seemed to have figured this one out)

3. Start dealing with everyone’s response.

You don’t seem to understand number 3 at all. Go through the responses we’ve given and either admit you don’t know what the hell you are talking about or start defending it with rational arguments and even better reliable evidence (not 40 year old articles or articles which try to prove the opposite of what you are arguing).

Otherwise you’ll just go on most users ignore list and potentially will get the boot.

[DavisModerator]

Earle Sanborn wrote:

Davis, Pope Beanie, et all. It’s not helpful and pretty discourteous to compare a “Creationist with a bowling ball” for discussion purpose.

It is when you are flagrantly ignoring the rules of this forum

I’m pretty certain we each have our own histories, challenges, wishes, wants, needs, and desires, in our never ending quest for the truth. And unlike Pontius Pilate- there is knowable truth out there.

Except of course this is an atheist forum right, not a bible quoting factory.

Lastly, if you understand the following you will begin to understand a bit where I’m coming from:

WE DON’T GIVE THE SLIGHTEST SHIT ABOUT BIBLICAL VERSES AND WHY YOU ARE RELIGIOUS. NOW PLEASE START DEALING WITH OUR RESPONSES TO YOUR POST.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Earle – no more proselytizing please. Many atheists here have no idea about “John” especially Ex-Muslims and Ex-Hindus or atheists from other parts of Asia or indeed anywhere else in the world. They have no interest or desire to hear about him just as you have no interest in hearing what some Islamic hadith says.

I would also appreciate you dealing with the points we make as rebuttals to what you are posting. Please try to articulate your arguments in your own words. Copy and Paste also does not work here when it is from the Bible.

 

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

@ Earle – in our never ending quest for the truth.

Are you admitting you have not yet found the truth? That would be an honest position to hold as most Christians here insist that they have.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

Earle Sanborn wrote:

Davis, Pope Beanie, et all. It’s not helpful and pretty discourteous to compare a “Creationist with a bowling ball” for discussion purpose. I’m pretty certain we each have our own histories, challenges, wishes, wants, needs, and desires, in our never ending quest for the truth. And unlike Pontius Pilate- there is knowable truth out there.

@earlesanborn I agree about the bowling ball discourtesy, unless I’m feeling angry, but then I invariably edit it out and tell myself the anger was only good for me at the moment, to let off steam or act tribal in a primal way. But I’d rather err toward tolerance in general, and consider how theists would or wouldn’t be swayed by our arguments. In your case, I consider the following points foremost:

• In the bigger picture, in today’s world, we need more venues for dispassionate, reasonable discussion on important topics. I wanted to forgive your first, long post, assuming you didn’t realize how intrusive it really was, while perhaps needing more confidence to start your own topic.
• Your perspective and scope is not new, but it endures, and it has a significant following, so I feel it deserves its own sessions for argument. These are claims and arguments we’ve heard before, numerous times, but yeah, many people new to AZ are new to such topics. So it’s (imo) a relevant, first-timer kind of discussion.
• Even the copy/paste aspect is sometimes acceptable, as long as it’s clear up front that it’s a copy/paste, with attribution given to the original source.
• It’s almost always unproductive to post so many controversial points at once. How on earth can that evoke any productive, two-way discussion between individuals or groups with so many strongly held convictions?

I wrote more paragraphs here, but they’ll fit better in their own posts that address your points, one by one if possible.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 7 months ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: damn, I shock MYSELF with how inarticulate I can be! many typos and edits here

[PopeBeanieModerator]

The biblical quotes don’t fly with me, except in their generic philosophical or allegorical context. The huge issue here that begs the question and belongs in its own category of topic (especially in an atheist website) is about how divine all that text is to start with. It was written by mortals. Human beings.

What, other than age of the text gives more weight than (say) the Koran, which Muhammad says is the final word of God? Every religion claims that their scripture is the only valid representation of God. Assuming God even exists, isn’t it extremely arrogant to say, without question, that there is only one genuine source of the word of God, and that you know what that is?

[PopeBeanieModerator]

The “trend” in science you say is away from Darwinism. I admit, I’m in awe with what people who formed and are running the Discovery Institute came up with, as many of them understand the process of evolution better than most people in USA, and other wide swaths of populated earth. But what totally discredits them is their obvious bias toward bending science to support their theological view.

Real scientists can be mistaken, or hold selfish motives, but over time, the world-wide consensus of science is strengthened by how consistent it is across multiple scientific disciplines, newly discovered evidence, and reproducible, empirical experiments. Big Bang, Quantum Theory, and so on are currently in favor, but unlike religious scripture, they’re perennially subject to tests and refinement, or even overhauls. Scriptures claim and impose (or are at least assigned) self-imposed non-correction, for eternity!?

In particular, in contrast to your assertion, Darwinian-inspired evolutionary theory is undergoing explosive growth in new disciplines such as genetics, epigenetics (but not the pseudo-science brands of it), developmental biology, ongoing fossil discoveries, and non-fossil discoveries of primitive life form biology such as proteome assays that clearly show species lineages back to millions of years. (Must I also add, for creationist readers, how the science of isotopes and other chemistry and physics backs up how old the earth is? Modern science is increasingly, and completely unintentionally discrediting the earth’s 5k year history as described in the bible.)

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

[Author]

Posts