...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] Doug, if you have to ask me to name Darwinists, you obviously didn't watch the lecture. Why lie? You have not watched the lecture and all your posts show it. And you post articles that answer questions you've been asking over several thread pages. You obviously don't even read your own articles. Here it is, from your own article: [QUOTE]Perhaps surprisingly, Lewis [b]makes this same point when talking about evolution:[/b] [QUOTE]We [b]must sharply distinguish between Evolution as a biological theorem and popular Evolutionism or Developmentalism which is certainly a Myth[/b]. [...] To the biologist Evolution […] covers more of the facts than any other hypothesis at present on the market and is therefore to be accepted unless, or until, some new supposal can be shown to cover still more facts with even fewer assumptions. […] It makes no cosmic statements, no metaphysical statements, no eschatological statements.[2][/QUOTE]The real [b]danger is not evolutionary theory, then, but Evolutionism—the all-encompassing worldview.[/b] Lewis was right to want to put Evolutionism to rest once and for all. (This is certainly a goal BioLogos shares with the ID movement, even as we disagree about the science of evolution.)[/QUOTE]While the word Darwinism is not used in this quote, it does talk about popular evolutionism. This is the same thing I've been talking about. Doug posts this article, then keeps asking me to substantiate the distinction, even though it's in is his article. The problem with you, Doug, is that you are simply clueless about ongoing conversations and debates, which extends even to the articles you post. You are also in denial and indoctrinated, criticizing what you call "rationalism" not realizing you're knee-deep in it yourself. It shows in your line of questioning and inability to comprehend my arguments. It shows in your posting of articles that say the same thing you see wrong in my posts. It is not my responsibility to inform you about the ongoing conversations that are taking place and how the disagreements are structured. When I post, my audience is people who intend to research and verify/falsify or people who have already done research and who can hold an intelligent debate without getting confused over widely used words. Stop wasting my time and your own time. You're obviously not going to read/comprehend anything (not even your own sources), so what is the point in asking me to substantiate something? ============= I also reject all claims attributed to me in this thread from now on unless there is a quote showing I said it. If people are attributing something to me and it sounds absurd and there is no quote, it's deliberate. They're lying. [/qb][/QUOTE]Don't you see that is why I posted the article in the first place? How are you claiming I missed something when I posted it in the first place? You keep making the point that these people in "mainstream" science are blind followers of Darwin. I say they aren't and that even Darwin himself understood the flaws in his own theories, not to mention many other "mainstream" scientists, yet you then turn around and claim that the articles I posted which say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are claiming prove you right. That is just ridiculous. You are misrepresenting everything about the history of science on this issue. When I say the history of science, I mean the history of ideas. You keep trying to pigeonhole ideas into one camp or another and not admitting there are many people with many ideas and everybody isn't a blind follower of individual theories and ideologies. [b]YOU[/b] aren't unique in questioning Darwin is my point. Many people have done it and continue to do it which is why modern science is not simply a blind cult of Darwinists. Yes, there are some folks who can be called "Darwinists" but to say they represent "mainstream" science is false. They don't. They represent themselves. That is why you can't name them because you know there is no such cabal of "Darwinists" who represent mainstream science on evolution. And certainly they don't have the ability to stop people from debating or critiquing darwinism within "mainstream" science. All these articles and debates on Darwinism are from with "mainstream" science is the point. Therefore you can't claim otherwise. The scientific process revolves around ideas and people reviewing, critiquing and debating ideas as they are published. Therefore "mainstream" science has been debating and critiquing and analyzing "darwinian evolution" since Darwin himself first published his ideas. Claiming otherwise is ridiculous. Therefore, like I said before, many of these ideas you claim are "new" or "outside" mainstream science are actually not new or outside mainstream science at all. At the end of the day most of the debates over evolution boil down to a debate over religion vs science, where some people believe that science cannot answer it all and that life came from "god". While science is firmly on the trail of looking for tangible facts and evidence to explain the processes at work in the universe without relying on myths, fables or religious ideology. That is all this boils down to and I said this a few pages ago. On the scientific side, most people, including Darwin, understand full well that the issues related to evolution go back to the cambrian explosion and the fact that most major phyla of animals appeared at that time. And modern "mainstream" science is trying to understand how this happened. The two biggest scientific puzzles in evolution is the origin of the major animal phyla and the origin of single cell organisms with contained nuclei and genomes. That is where most evolutionary research is taking place today. [QUOTE] This research will bring little cheer to contemporary creationists who, following a long and storied tradition, misuse the Cambrian explosion to attack evolution. Their most common line is that the leap of evolution during the Cambrian involved too many changes too quickly, that the Cambrian therefore represents a gap in the fossil record best filled by a supernatural explanation. For example, Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, wrote in his 1974 book Scientific Creationism: There is obviously a tremendous gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high complexity and variety of the many invertebrate phyla of the Cambrian. If the former evolved into the latter, it seems impossible that no transitional forms between any of them would ever be preserved or found. A much more likely explanation for these gaps is that they represent permanent gaps between created kinds. Each organism has its own structure, specifically designed for its own purpose, not accidentally evolved by random processes. Following a string of legal defeats for the openly religious brand of creationism espoused by Morris, creationists used this concept of “specifically designed” organisms as a component of intelligent design creationism (IDC). IDC became a safe front for creationists to espouse scientific terminology while repeating religiously-motivated attacks on evolution. Creationist rhetoric has changed, but their indignation toward the Cambrian explosion is the same. Phillip Johnson, one of the founders of IDC, wrote in his 1991 book Darwin on Trial: The single greatest problem which the fossil record poses for Darwinism is the ‘Cambrian Explosion’ of around 600 million years ago. Nearly all the animal phyla appear in the rocks of this period, without a trace of the evolutionary ancestors that Darwinists require. Morris and Johnson are both wrong about the science, of course, but that hasn’t stopped their flimsy claims from being endlessly reiterated. Why are creationists so obsessed with this aspect of paleontology, and not, say, the fascinating fossil record of sloths? What special appeal does the Cambrian explosion have for them? In the “sudden appearance” of organisms during the geologically brief Cambrian explosion, creationists imagine tangible evidence for the supernatural creation of animal “kinds.” To their eyes, these rocks record the moment of creation when Yahweh declared: “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds.” They point to Precambrian rocks with their lack of fossilized hard parts, then point to Cambrian layers with their copious fossils and say, “See! Right there: creation.” The story is not so simple, of course; we now know a lot more about life in the period before the Cambrian. The ancient lineages that eventually diversified extend far back in time, a long fuse leading to the eventual explosion. While the rapid evolution during the Cambrian is described as geologically brief, it is important to define what that means. On human timescales, the shortest estimation for the length of the Cambrian explosion, about 10 million years, is incomprehensibly long. Moreover, the tiny Cambrian arthropods likely had much faster maturations and much shorter lifespans than humans. Our anthropocentric perception of the flow of time, in which a family might have only three or four generations per century, is very different from the number of generations Cambrian critters produced. Ten million years provides plentiful time, as Lee et al. showed. Yet creationists insist that there was not enough time for such biological complexity to arise, without ever defining why that time frame is insufficient. Creationists will no doubt continue to pontificate about the Cambrian explosion. They create among their followers the illusion that they are remedying some deficiency in science, when in fact they contribute nothing to scientific discourse or peer-reviewed research. When actual scientific research, such as Lee et al., contradicts their unique interpretations, this gives them no pause. Their Cambrian dilemma is not about rates of evolution, but about how to hijack real science in the service of dogma. [/QUOTE] https://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/darwin-s-dilemma-was-cambrian-explosion-too-fast-evolution-0015109 [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3