"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- teleos0
http://timesonline.typepad.com/s…
http://www.newscientist.com/arti…
Humans may have "descended" from cuddly, furry little Emurs, maybe not. But it wasn't random variation + natural selection (the Darwinian Mechanism) that was responsible for said descent. It was front-loaded pre-programmed saltation.
- ...And he bursts forth like Superman out of the phone boothukit
- teleos0
Gravity is a law. Entropy is a law.
Darwinian Evolution is a highly speculative steamboat-era creation myth.
- teleos0
ribit: There are multiple definitions for "evolution". Different people mean different things when they say "evolution". Depending on whom you ask, it can mean simply "change over time" or it can mean descent with modification via Darwinian mechanisms. If one is speaking of the Darwinian synthesis then they are making a much grander claim than simply change over time.
Gravity - It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs.
Entropy - This is also known as the Second LAW of Thermodynamics. Learn, go, tell.
- Yes. Teach the Controversy. That's all you can do 'cuase you don't understand what you spew.TheBlueOne
- An assertion without supporting facts or evidence is simply hot air. What is this this grander claim that 'one' or 'they' are supposedly makingcomicsans
- supposedly makingcomicsans
- my god you're annoyingRand
- :)teleos
- teleos0
comicsans: The grand claim that many are making is that natural selection acting upon random mutations [aka the Darwinian synthesis or Darwinian Evolution] is responsible for all of biology.
- Mimio0
Too bad your God cell theory holds no water at all.
- Khurram0
Well, i'm glad to see teleos that you know longer flat deny evolution like u used to many years ago. At least now you come to accept this "speciasation" or whatever vague term you use.
Even if you're saying "god caused monkey to turn into man".
Also you no longer harp on at the second law of thermodynamics as the final blow against evolution...
All this tells me you are slowly learning - even if you are still wedded to your sandal-era dogma.
- Khurram0
He also doesn't say earth is 6,000 years old either anymore. Well done!
- teleos0
Khurram: I never flat out denied "evolution". Neither did I "harp on at the second law of thermodynamics as the final blow against evolution", even if it remains an incredible challenge to Darwinian evolution.
- TheBlueOne0
I seemed to have missed your entry in the Art Is War II contest. I bet it was something playful and biting regarding an astronaut and evolution or mitochondria or something. Thanks for being a vital and contributing part of the community.
- I didn't start this thread. Nor any of the other evolution related discussions. Always happy to contribute though.teleos
- Yes. Quite.TheBlueOne
- he's saying you aren't part of the design community this site espouses. god you are dense.spifflink
- Khurram0
Ummm, pages and pages of discipler/flagellum posts would say othewise. And the 2nd law etc was the ONLY thing you had right at the beginning.
Still tho, you're learning and growing, as must we all. So well done at being more edukated FOUR YEARS ON.
- Mimio0
Because it just piggybacks evolutionary biology and the idea of common descent without adding anything to it. Also it begs the question of intention in respect to the "designed to fail" scenarios that have obviously happened over the eons. In my opinion it's just another place for the creationists to run and hide.
- TheBlueOne0
Please tell us about "Intelligent Falling" since the Theory of Gravity, is just, you know, a theory...
- hahahaukit
- gravity is a law.teleos
- perhaps you missed that.teleos
- Perhaps you didn't get that this was a joke.TheBlueOne
- no it isn't. obviously physics isn't your strong suit. then again, neither is critical thinking.spifflink
- teleos0
Mimio: The problems with the darwinian synthesis remain irrespective of the apparent "designed to fail" scenarios. And disteleology issues raise theological questions.
- Khurram0
These are some of the things you used to say:
http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
I love monkeys, Fariska. They way they pee into their mouths and fling feces is endearing. No, I'm just saying that science is demonstrating that we do not share a common ancestry with them.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
Mimio, how is it that we do not share a common ancestry? Well we could fill this thread with a books-worth. In a nutshell, because science demonstrates that species to species mutations could not happen.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
emokid, the problem is that the most recent evidence shows that evolution did not and could not have happened.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
When did they exist? Depends on who you ask. ;) I would say they were within the last 10,000 years because I believe there was rapid fossilization due to a world-wide deluge. But the "when" is not the issue, I don't think.http://www.qbn.com/topics/387732…
dobs, there's plenty of geological evidence that demonstrates a young earth and rapid fossilization. Radiometric dating is terribly unreliable. But we've already beaten that dead horse here.I just put discipler in the filter and found that. I could dig more if i was bothered THAT much.
2005 bro! FOUR YEARS you've been beating this horse.
FOUR fucking YEARS.
- teleos0
Kuz: I standby everything you've linked there EXCEPT for:
"When did they exist? Depends on who you ask. ;) I would say they were within the last 10,000 years because I believe there was rapid fossilization due to a world-wide deluge. But the "when" is not the issue, I don't think."
I'm no longer a YEC. And I've said this in many other threads.
btw, you keep appearing in these discussions (which i didn't start) and thus contribute to the flogging of the horse. :)
- Khurram0
Yeah but i'm here on a general level, as well as having orchestrated some of the morst EPIC QBN/NT London drinks in history *pops collar*
Really though:
"Khurram: I never flat out denied "evolution"."
And in those statements you flat out deny evolution. As well as say there is no shared ancestary between humans and monkeys, while up at the top of this page you say we "may" have ancestory with monkeys.
But its cool - nothign wrong with admitting u were once wrong and are now learning! This is good! I have been wrong many time and continue to learn and grow!
- Khurram0
Well i'm sure he will come up with some linguistic chicanery to deny his views display "speciasation" over time... dude, as Christian you should be more familiar with humility!!! It's ok!!
...this is distracting...
- I can confidently assert a position on a topic without being arrogant can't I?teleos
- teleos0
Kuz: You're here on a "general level" only because you have been banned numerous times and Lord knows how many times have had to rig up some kind of IP blocking system to get back in. But this is neither here nor there...
None of those statements I made deny "evolution" in the sense of change over time. Dude, even YEC's believe in limited speciation from generic animal "kinds". Evolution happens. What is in question is the "how"... the mechanism. And what changed into what.
But's it's cool. I can roll with people arbitrarily limiting/expanding/stretching the generic term "evolution".
- see: Baraminology
http://creationwiki.…teleos - creationwiki?? haha!spifflink
- see: Baraminology
- ukit0