Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1417 by Omega Nation]

Man, you have all the useless oldies: CA201

I confess to not being familiar with what CA201 (and others) means. Can you explain? I'm guess I'm still learning some of the lingo here, lol.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1418 by Danmark]

What then, is a creation scientist? Isn't it a scientist that studies creation?
Atheists do not control science. But some science may control atheists.

Do you really think that beliefs beyond the "realm of science" will delude young minds? What harm is it doing a child to believe in the existence of a Creator and to believe such precepts as love your neighbor? Why all of the fear against such teachings?
I am "entitled" to call science anything I wish. As are you. You forget that even those who aren't atheists still retain some rights.
Of course Creationism does not meet scientific criteria as it is defined by those who wish to discount it. The not so silent minority insists that religion tries to control others' minds while not realizing that the scientific community is doing just that by defining everything as it sees fit.

To the bold above, the harm:
Only when Christians and Muslims (for example) stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much as to send them to a heaven, but hates the other so much as to send them to hell, will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed.

There can be good in religions. Take Buddhism for example:
The Golden Rule can be found in the early contributions of Confucianism (551–479 BC)

But we cannot forget the harm either. You pointing to the Golden Rule does not make the harmful stuff go away.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1418 by Danmark]

I agree that this should not continue indefinitely. We do have sources called the Bible and basic common sense. Just because a scientist didn't write it does not make it any less a worthy source.

Thank you for your time.

How is this beneficial?

Try this on for size and see for yourself:
I agree that this should not continue indefinitely. We do have sources called science and basic common sense. Just because ignorant, dessert nomad goat herders without written language didn't write the scientific method does not make it any less a worthy source.

If you can explain why a book written by nomadic dessert goat herders without written language should supersede the scientific method, I'm all ears.
I would suggest not being condescending though. After all, one source believes in talking donkeys and snakes while the other claims such things are not possible.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1402 by Goat]

Okay Goat
1. Evolution is the study of Humanity evolving from Simian to Sapiens to Average Human. If you think that Evolution could have "developed" a conscience and
morality on its own how would it be able to grow from not having any information on morality to knowing for sure what is right and wrong? Morality just doesn't mix with
evolution in terms of working together and establishing a society. If I told you that
I beat my wife and killed random people on the street as a sport, you would probably act like a Christian and tell me "What's wrong with you. That is wrong."
See, with atheism there really is no establishment to tell what is right and what is wrong. After all there is no real reason to be moral. Yes of course there is a justice system but what is that really going to teach people. There are two types of evolution
Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is when small changes are made to an animal. Macro-evolution is when major changes occur to an animal or
species. Macro-evolution is the kind of evolution explained for the cause of man in an atheist world view. It is believed by faith that this type actually exists although
there really is no evidence of this occurring. In fact it's actually been faked before. Evolution cannot jump.
If you put the entire span of evolution explained in a 24 hour day it goes from it doesn't jump it to it makes a huge leap almost instantly.

2. Everyone in the world has a conscience. Animals do not have a conscience that
we know of. No conscience is exactly the same. That is why there are all different
and unique. When I explained morality in the section above I didn't mean that
atheists cannot be moral. I simply meant that morality comes from somewhere in
ourselves called a conscience. Don't get me wrong there can be a moral atheist
but the fact that they are moral cannot be explained scientifically. A conscience
can also not be proven scientifically because it is something inside the human mind
that promotes uniqueness and moral values. It says what's wrong and what is right.
The reason I believe conscience comes from God is because conscience has almost
the exact same principles of morality shown in the new testament and the old.
Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't lie, of course not all people have the same exact conscience but those are what most people follow all because of conscience. Because
evolution says that the enlargement of the brain influences conscience. Why should
it be all unique the way it is.

What I see here is the logical fallacy known as 'argument from ignorance', with a lot of incorrect and unprovable assumptions. As for morality being able to be described scientifically, why yes it can.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 1396 by kenblogton]

Steven Stanley is a respected evolutionary biologist. This is part of his evidence for punctuated equilibrium, a suspected form of evolution that would allow for long periods of no change.

Punctuated equilibrium is fundamentally an attempt to explain away the lack of solid evidence for evolution. The fact remains that there was a documented period of 5 million years with no evidence of continuous evolution. And it is based on Stanley's own data, not on his interpretation of the data.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1428 by kenblogton]

There is plenty of evidence of evolution, as presented many many times in this thread.


http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_qu ... of_context


(and no, one basin with a 5 million year absence of noticeable 'gradual' change is far from proof that evolution is false - though it might be interesting evidence for punctuated equilibrium)

[kenblogton]

Reply to 2. How are the arguments discredited?

kemblogton

H.sapiens reply
Through your dishonest quote mining and misrepresentations.

kenblogton reply:
What is dishonest and misrepresenting about my posting.? Cavalier assertions without specifying their basis is most unhelpful. Spell it out!
What specifically was dishonest?
What specifically was misrepresenting?
kenblogton

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 1430 by kenblogton]

It's a quote out of context that is used in a fashion that twists the meaning - that's what quote mining us.

"Punctuated equilibrium is fundamentally an attempt to explain away the lack of solid evidence for evolution. " Though you may see it as such, that is not the case, no rational evolutionary biologist has ever "attempt to explain away the lack of solid evidence for evolution" since there is no need to do so, there is very solid evidence for evolution and 99.9% of the scientists in the world know that, even if you do not. So, you are lying about what the evolutionary biologists' motivations are, there is nothing to explain away, though there are details and fine points worth discussing.