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

Homepage Forums Small Talk A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists

This topic contains 66 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 4 months ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 61 through 67 (of 67 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10878

    So a bad theory – evolution- which many even evolutionary scientist admit now days has real problems due to the advancement in scientific knowledge in the past 200 years…

    Please list some of those scientists names please.

    …modern science clearly shows there was a beginning to the physical world– radio isotopes and decaying matter.

    Nothing to do with Evolution.

    So when Darwin and others penned the theory of evolution (essentially saying life has always existed and remains without a first cause of creation–which would demand a creator).

    It absolutely does not say that life has always existed.

    I’m sorry Simon, but evolutionary logic has no real relevance to the natural world because Evolution is not based on science any more.

    Rubbish. With these statements and your use of Darwin Debunked websites it is obvious that you have no understanding of what evolution is.

    If an accountant told you that capital expenditure is never an investment because it involves spending money I am sure you would think he does not understand basic macro-economic theory.

    #10929

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    So a bad theory – evolution- which many even evolutionary scientist admit now days has real problems due to the advancement in scientific knowledge in the past 200 years– can be used “because it has great explanatory power, for one reason”. I’m sorry Simon, but evolutionary logic has no real relevance to the natural world because Evolution is not based on science any more. It’s akin to saying “spontaneous generation theory” has so great explanatory power. Really, a long documented, and debunked theory can explain the natural world.

    @earlesanborn You’re way out of touch with mainstream science, and leaning toward (or practically immersed in) an unscientific, biblical view of our world. Please take a peak at Project Steve for an overview of the overwhelming view of modern scientists.

    Your so-called “decline of Darwinism” is a fantasy promulgated primarily by religious fundamentalists working their butts off to contort science to support their theological view. It is a view most loved by uneducated, non-scientists caring about the most literal interpretations of their bible. Their goals are analogous to other fundamentalist organizations like Boko Haram claiming that modern education is their enemy.

    Scientists are not working to disprove your view of creation! Creationism is not based on facts or evidence, which scientists require for their bread and butter, but on scripture written a thousand years before science was made a successful tool of discovery, innovation, invention, modern medicine, and an ark-load of seemingly eternally burgeoning technologies.

    Wake up and smell the coffee! (Do you believe in the existence of cars, planes, cancer treatments, space exploration, TV, computers, internet, automatic coffee makers… ?) You are clearly–and I’ll wager intentionally–out of touch with centuries of scientific trends.

    #10930

    Earle Sanborn
    Participant

    Okay you asked for it now. I don’t have to believe in something I see (my computer, phone, tv, etc.).

    The inventions we’ve seen the past 200-300 years are based on honest to goodness science- things that are known and working. For example, no rationale person would suggest he/she could jump off the empire state building and fly or live after the fall (gravity). The world is rational and all the mathematicians from the 1400-1500s onward based their studies and experiments on the stability of the world. There are almost countless equations that can only exist if there is stability and rationality.

    It’s not my view of creation- it’s quite clear to most thinking, rationale individuals in the 21st century that life did not evolve from some sort of primordial ooze. Everywhere you look things that came about in the Cambrian Explosion shows many, many life forms exploded on the seen fully intact many the same today as they were 450 Million years ago- such as the spider, fish, frogs, and now extinct trilobites. Trilobites were very complicated creatures with hard shells, bodies fully formed, and complex organs. The fossil record shows this. The trilobite eye science shows is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, containing two lens layers. It is a wonder of design. One gent, David Raup, professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester and Chicago says, “The trilobites 450 million years ago used the optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”

    This alone disproves Darwinism all by itself because no other complex creature with similar structures lived in previous geological periods. I don’t fault Charles Darwin for his theories, but I do fault people in 2018. Seeing that every step of the way, Darwinism fails scientifically. Darwin even said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

    We already know natural selection has nothing to do with evolution as no new genes are added to the static gene pool. One can mate bears for two hundred years and you’d still get a bear. Variation in species is not micro-evolution.

    To boot, the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, acknowledging the complete lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age made this comment, “Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us.”

    At the end of the day, one can be an atheist or agnostic or whatever. But one can’t rationally point to evolution as the “science” behind their belief. The science is clearly and critically lacking due to advances in science since 1840 and every day brings more. If one does try to point to Darwinian evolution as to why they are an atheist or agnostic, I don’t think much of their scholarship, truthfulness or zest for knowledge.

    #10931

    At the end of the day, one can be an atheist or agnostic or whatever. But one can’t rationally point to evolution as the “science” behind their belief. The science is clearly and critically lacking due to advances in science since 1840 and every day brings more. If one does try to point to Darwinian evolution as to why they are an atheist or agnostic, I don’t think much of their scholarship, truthfulness or zest for knowledge.

    Thanks for that one. I am going it share with some scientists, including a microbiologist and a physicist working in medical research, if you don’t mind.

    FYI, I have never met anyone who became an atheist because of Evolution. You still do not understand what atheism is and your comprehension of Evolution is very flawed.

     

    #10932

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    This alone disproves Darwinism all by itself because no other complex creature with similar structures lived in previous geological periods.

    But your bar of “proof” is so low! Can you give us any example in the bible with the slightest hint of proof of creation? How can any scientist, much less YOU be sooo familiar with fossil evidence to be sure that “no other complex creature with similar structures lived in previous geological periods”? I like that you accept fossil evidence, but it’s unscientific to make any claim deduced from lack of evidence.

    We already know natural selection has nothing to do with evolution as no new genes are added to the static gene pool. One can mate bears for two hundred years and you’d still get a bear. Variation in species is not micro-evolution.

    No, we do not know this. Let me try another approach for you. How is it that paleobiologists have been able to predict and find species such as Tiktaalik? According to your view, no such species should be expected to exist, because according to your view, correct me if I’m wrong, there will never be enough fossils to prove that transitional species exist. I will point out to you again that ring species are current day, real life examples of how one species can vary so much that organisms at each end of the ring are sufficiently, genetically different from each other to present as different species from each other. They are the “same” species in name only, but they clearly illustrate, genetically, microevolution.

    The science is clearly and critically lacking due to advances in science since 1840 and every day brings more. If one does try to point to Darwinian evolution as to why they are an atheist or agnostic, I don’t think much of their scholarship, truthfulness or zest for knowledge.

    Again, you’re completely ignoring the vast majority of scientific discoveries. And theists can point only to ancient scripture to support “truthfulness or zest for knowledge”.

    Please try Understanding Evolution.

    #10933

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Once again some of you at Atheist Zone have endless patience with a theist who is so damn dishonest.

    #10936

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Yes, I tend to take an approach that assumes people are sincere, even when they’re stubbornly attached to traditional myth for their world view. Our human brains haven’t evolved enough to nurture (without education) at a group level logical, dispassionate, intellectual discussions; I see how people deeply steeped in their culture can also learn to be both closed minded to other cultural perspectives, and convinced that their in-group’s perspective is “so obviously superior”, without realizing how tribally self-biased they become.

    I stopped criticizing less tolerant atheists long ago, and it took me too long to appreciate Dawkins’ and Hitch’s styles of argument. I appreciated one of the four horsemen Daniel Dennett the most, especially while he was accused of being “an accomodationist”. I’ll also accept that criticism for myself, and I try not to react in kind.

    Actually, I don’t expect Earl to absorb much of my perspective, but I still hope that other, theist readers can see that there are sensible alternatives to the hard line theistic traditions they’ve become slaves to, and some of them may be more amenable to learning to learn without first being shamed into it, then dogmatized.

Viewing 7 posts - 61 through 67 (of 67 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.