"law" of evolution?
- Started
- Last post
- 90 Responses
- Khurram0
"emokid, the problem is that the most recent evidence shows that evolution did not and could not have happened."
"science is demonstrating that we do not share a common ancestry with [monkeys]."
"Humans may have "descended" from cuddly, furry little Emurs.. but it wasn't the Darwinian Mechanism... It was front-loaded pre-programmed saltation"
- Rand0
what's a YEC
- Yawn
Enducing
Cuntharlequino - someone who says the earth is 10,000 years ago, as he once did. But now denies...Khurram
- Young Earth Creationistteleos
- rapid fossilisation.. RAPID FOSSILISATIONKhurram
- Yawn
- ukit0
YEC, YO, YEC!
Y to the E to the C
- Khurram0
*sigh*, hindsights a bitch....
- context is the bitch. I was speaking of the Darwinian evolution. And no, it could not have happened. This remains my stance.teleos
- position.teleos
- what did i say about linguistic chicanery?Khurram
- you said: [Science] does not observe species to species evolution from a common ancestor.Khurram
- That is pretty unequivocal dude, no matter how you phrase it.Khurram
- Now you're saying science DOES show evolution, but this is due to pre-programmed DNA or whatever.Khurram
- speciation you are calling it.Khurram
- TheBlueOne0
What is the statistical probability that Intelligent Design has a paradigmatic and empirical confirmation of the explanatory claims of intimately recognizable experimentability so as to ascertain its ability to confirm design intelligibilityness and retrodictive historicality?
- Truthidization can only be derived from incidental factudedness.harlequino
- strategery.teleos
- Khurram0
Don't worry. You are not alone. I too wish QBN would destroy some of my older posts.
- Khurram0
You're getting tense teleos. Seriously, chillax-et-vous. We are all friends here
*mwah mwah*
- teleos0
We have to define terms...
Evolution - meaning change over time, is demonstrated by science.
Evolution - meaning the Darwinian synthesis of natural selection acting upon random variation/mutation is not supported by scientific evidence.
- ukit0
So the nearly exact identical anatomy between Archaeopteryx and dinosaurs is just a coincidence, huh? God works in mysterious ways!
- Khurram0
Yes yes! We must define terms! So the cognitive dissonance caused by what teleos said before and what he says now and his obstinance with his views can be recognised without causing some sort of identity crisis!
From here on, teleos has defined these terms for us*
*Subject to a five-yearly review of each definition depending on the opinions teleos holds at that time. Whut.
- teleos0
of course horses zebra speciation occurred. But who said it was a Darwinian process?
- Khurram0
When i said i fucked your mother, in the ass! this does not necessarily mean i penetrated her with my penis.
We really need to get our definitions right, otherwise there'll be no end of confusion. God!
- ceiling_cat0
they say this fossil can rewrite the books of science.........
how stable is science, will it change in 20 years too with another discovery?
man is a fool, they use to believe the earth is flat
the truth be here
http://www.lolcatbible.com/index…- Science isn't supposed to be stable. All it is is a method of disproving things. It's unstable by it's very definition.TheBlueOne
- designbot0
The main problem I have with some of the more hardcore believers in evolution (or science in general) is the thought that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes. That idea seems kind of insane to me. What about human experiences, do they mean nothing? Can everything be explained through some formula or are there some things (supernatural or other) that simply fall outside the realm of what science is capable of understanding. When I use the word "understanding" I am really talking about reproducing a thing/event so it can be studied and made into a law/theory. I think we can all agree there are lots of things ( love, hate, a mothers instinct, etc.) that cannot be quantified by science but we can know through our own experiences or other people experiences that these things are indeed real. At the end of the day I think this debate of "evolution vs. creation" or whatever name you want to give it is really just a hindrance that is tiny, and maybe even slightly insignificant, in comparison to our human experiences and the life we live. I have often heard people state "give science time and it will be able to explain all things" that is, all things through natural occurrences. I know lots (and respect) people who hold to this view. But this truly boils down to a FAITH issue on their behalf.
- I guess what I am getting at is if you hold to this strict scientific view of "truth" I think you will miss out on life and what is possible.designbot
- possible.designbot
- well, no - scientists can be happily married, love their children, etc - but when they do science, they are scientistsmikotondria3
- You might find this interesting designbot:
http://www.ottawacit…TheBlueOne - that's a pretty short sighted view of science. how can you be 'hardcore' into facts and reason?spifflink
- TheBlueOne0
I think designbot, your issue (and the problem fundamentalist religon types) is in fact with determinism, and not that "that EVERYTHING can be explained through natural processes". It's in actuality a serious problem confronted by scientific philosophers for quite a while. It does seem that the thinking going on in Emergence studies and Complexity Theory are starting to point to a universe that isn't in fact based on Newtonian deterministic, reductionist principles - thus it cannot explain all things. There is, in fact, space for creativity and choice within the All. Despite the press that Dawkins, et. all. seem to get, Science doesn't really care about God, proving or disproving him. It's not at heart a scientific question, because you can neither prove or disprove such a thing.