Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

#176
#176
BigOrangeTrain said:
Many scientists do not agree with the theory of evolution. If it were such a fact then there would be much more agreement within the scientific community.

Furthering of knowledge and scientific advancements will eventually overturn the idiotic notion of evolution.
Click to expand...

They've waited 150 years for a fossil record that will prove the theory. They'll wait 150 more.
 
#177
#177
Septic said:
Wow, it must have taken you a while to dig up that nugget. (hogfarmer.com) Are you a hog farmer?

Like evolution - germ theory, heliocentric solar system theory & atomic theory are all just theory's - 'the general theory's are confirmed by all available evidence so that it consistent with and can predict new and unobserved phenomena.

Theory's aren't worth much if they can correctly predict all known evidence.'

Unless you have contradictory peer reviewed evidence, the theory of evolution should be regarded as fact. If you (or anyone) can provide evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly change my position. We may disagree on the origin of life but the mountains of evidence supporting evolution is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

No, not a hog farmer. It's called google, try it sometime.

We 100% disagree on the origin of life and humanity as there is ZERO hard evidence supporting life began by sheer happenstance.

We do not disagree on evolution, plants/animals have evolved to adapt however one animal doesn't evolve into another completely different one.
 
#178
#178
hog88 said:
No, not a hog farmer. It's called google, try it sometime.

We 100% disagree on the origin of life and humanity as there is ZERO hard evidence supporting life began by sheer happenstance.

We do not disagree on evolution, plants/animals have evolved to adapt however one animal doesn't evolve into another completely different one.
Click to expand...


His screen name is septic...maybe he's a honey dipper by his logic.
 
#179
#179
Orange_Crush said:
I don't know how better to say it. You used this as a mathematical model to replicate blind, unguided natural selection.

It is not blind, it is guided, and it is not natural selection. Do you have any other mathematical models to make your point? This one failed.
Click to expand...

I used this as a mathematical model to show how randomness can create create order. Natural selection is random, a specific end state was used in the simulation to give a basis for selection. Your preoccupation with only one possible end state is clouding you. You even said as such:

Orange_Crush said:
I'm saying that I believe we are here because God knew exactly what He wanted us to be.
Click to expand...

Bottom line is there are multiple ways the dice of natural selection could have ended up. It just happens we are here. Thank goodness for the meteor that killed the dinosaurs.
 
#182
#182
BigOrangeTrain said:
Many scientists do not agree with the theory of evolution. If it were such a fact then there would be much more agreement within the scientific community.

Furthering of knowledge and scientific advancements will eventually overturn the idiotic notion of evolution.
Click to expand...

True, but what is telling is that it is virtual career suicide to disagree with the theory. Stephen Meyer used the multiple competing hyposthesis theory, which is the same that Darwin utilized. And speaking of peer reviewed. I hear this objection a lot, but i find few who are actually willing to pursue.
CSC - Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
 
#183
#183
Orange_Crush said:
They've waited 150 years for a fossil record that will prove the theory. They'll wait 150 more.
Click to expand...

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only problem I see with arguing down this road is once a transitional fossil is found it you will show it creates two more gaps in the evolutionary sequence, and when those are found it will create two more, ad infinitum. It's a never ending argument that gets ridiculous. But they are there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#184
#184
rjd970 said:
I used this as a mathematical model to show how randomness can create create order. Natural selection is random, a specific end state was used in the simulation to give a basis for selection. Your preoccupation with only one possible end state is clouding you. You even said as such:
Click to expand...

I'm preoccupied with any "end state". It's not natural selection. It's not "random chance". It is the predefined, programmed organization of random input. You claimed it shows how chance can organize. It actually shows how chance can be organized when a rational mind is inserted.

You really can't understand why I would take issue?

rjd970 said:
Bottom line is there are multiple ways the dice of natural selection could have ended up. It just happens we are here. Thank goodness for the meteor that killed the dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

That is question begging.
 
#190
#190
rjd970 said:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only problem I see with arguing down this road is once a transitional fossil is found it you will show it creates two more gaps in the evolutionary sequence, and when those are found it will create two more, ad infinitum. It's a never ending argument that gets ridiculous. But they are there.
Click to expand...

The fossil record is a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution. I won't even go into the question-begging aspect of it, in that similarity does not prove evolution. I'll just say that the PE evolutionists recognized the problem with the fossil record and argued the problems very successfully. They saw the problem, saw the ramifications on Darwinian evolution, and proposed Punctuated Equilibrium to explain it. The problem is that the "hopeful monster theory" is no more convincing.

Charles Darwin predicted a steady evolution that would have left an innumerable number of "transition fossils". As a mattter of fact, according to Darwin, almost every fossil found should be transitional, because Darwinian Evolution is supposed to be a slow, continual process. He knew the fossil record did not show this, but assured the world that it would. Guess what? It still doesn't show this. PE evolutionists recognized this and developed their theory that would better fit what we actually find in the fossil record-- a mode of evolution that doesn't evolve for vast amounts of time, then evolves with a flurry of activity. You know why? because that's what the fossil record shows, if one is bound to evolution to explain it.

The fossil record is Darwin's "God of the Gaps". They'll keep looking, but what they find, as Gould put it is the "sudden appearance of species" in the record.
 
#191
#191
Orange_Crush said:
I'm preoccupied with any "end state". It's not natural selection. It's not "random chance". It is the predefined, programmed organization of random input. You claimed it shows how chance can organize. It actually shows how chance can be organized when a rational mind is inserted.

You really can't understand why I would take issue?
Click to expand...

I understand why you take issue with the experiment itself. I have only said a specific end state was used to program the selection process. I'm saying the end state doesn't have to be predetermined in the real world because natural selection is random.

I also completely understand why you take issue with that and focus on the limitations of the experiment, say things I never said, etc. You believe there was only one possible outcome from natural selection.

Because there just HAD to be a guiding hand, right?

Orange_Crush said:
That is question begging.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Was it random chance a meteor wiped out most of life on this planet, changing the trajectory of evolution? If that meteor wouldn't have hit, would life be different today?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#193
#193
rjd970 said:
I understand why you take issue with the experiment itself. I have only said a specific end state was used to program the selection process. I'm saying the end state doesn't have to be predetermined in the real world because natural selection is random.

I also completely understand why you take issue with that and focus on the limitations of the experiment, say things I never said, etc. You believe there was only one possible outcome from natural selection.

Because there just HAD to be a guiding hand, right?
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the evidence you chose to prove your point doesn't prove your point. I never ventured a guess about outcomes per NS.

rjd970 said:
No, it isn't. Was it random chance a meteor wiped out most of life on this planet, changing the trajectory of evolution? If that meteor wouldn't have hit, would life be different today?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that it's question-begging to make the assertion that that's what happened.

:hi:
 
#195
#195
MercyPercy said:
You don't have to believe forum posters. But you should believe the vast majority of scientific authorities who say the same thing.
Click to expand...

I should believe a group of people who filter evidence through a philosophical ideal that I don't believe in? That's an odd statement. (Edit: And by the way, appeals to authority are a lazy way of doing business.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#197
#197
MercyPercy said:
Is it bad that I can pick out who went to college and who didn't based on their comments in this thread? :)
Click to expand...

MercyPercy said:
You don't have to believe forum posters. But you should believe the vast majority of scientific authorities who say the same thing.
Click to expand...

I guess MercyPercy equates college degrees to: "Don't think for yourself."
 
#198
#198
Orange_Crush said:
The fossil record is a huge problem for Darwinian Evolution. I won't even go into the question-begging aspect of it, in that similarity does not prove evolution. I'll just say that the PE evolutionists recognized the problem with the fossil record and argued the problems very successfully. They saw the problem, saw the ramifications on Darwinian evolution, and proposed Punctuated Equilibrium to explain it. The problem is that the "hopeful monster theory" is no more convincing.

Charles Darwin predicted a steady evolution that would have left an innumerable number of "transition fossils". As a mattter of fact, according to Darwin, almost every fossil found should be transitional, because Darwinian Evolution is supposed to be a slow, continual process. He knew the fossil record did not show this, but assured the world that it would. Guess what? It still doesn't show this. PE evolutionists recognized this and developed their theory that would better fit what we actually find in the fossil record-- a mode of evolution that doesn't evolve for vast amounts of time, then evolves with a flurry of activity. You know why? because that's what the fossil record shows, if one is bound to evolution to explain it.

The fossil record is Darwin's "God of the Gaps". They'll keep looking, but what they find, as Gould put it is the "sudden appearance of species" in the record.
Click to expand...

You're arguing Phyletic Gradualism versus Puncuated Equilibrium. Both still assume evolution, and both still fit in the Neo-Darwinistic framework. Again, its the details that are argued. Even Darwin admitted this:

It is often incorrectly assumed that he insisted that the rate of change must be constant, or nearly so, but even the first edition of On the Origin of Species states that "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus". Lingula is among the few brachiopods surviving today but also known from fossils over 500 million years old.[67] In the fourth edition (1866) of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote that "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."[68] Thus punctuationism in general is consistent with Darwin's conception of evolution.[66]
Click to expand...

Punctuated equilibrium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#199
#199
Orange_Crush said:
I should believe a group of people who filter evidence through a philosophical ideal that I don't believe in? That's an odd statement. (Edit: And by the way, appeals to authority are a lazy way of doing business.)
Click to expand...

There is no philosophical ideal they are filtering evidence through. That is a figment of your imagination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#200
#200
MercyPercy said:
Religious war on education imo.
Click to expand...

You mean the naturalist religion that, according to your posts, pops out college graduates that don't think for themselves and are programmed to be naturalists and trust others to think for them?

That is a war, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top