nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

catallus

EoghanIRL wrote: »

The bible was a human invention ffs .

Praise the Lord!

Squeedily Spooch

Imagination? Yes, wondering the how and the why of things is what we science for. Saying all of earth's creatures fit on a boat and then using pseudoscience to explain how isn't the same thing.

Capt'n Midnight

J C wrote: »

Don't know about other religions ... but Prof Sir Fred Hoyle and Prof Sir Francis Crick were two Atheists who recognized that Materialistic Evolution was mathematically impossible and they provided the basic maths

Now here's the thing, they proposed theories that differed from the conventional. Because in science you can do that.

And yet all creationists tote the party line.

Again I don't think you understand what science is.

If Rosalind Franklin hadn't shared her research to Watson and Crick then you may never have heard of them.

Hoyle was big into panspersia so no creator, no 6,000 year old earth , and most definitely earth isn't special. Also while some of his early work was inspired , carbon cycle in stars and stuff, not so much attention was paid to the later stuff.

Also if life didn't originate on earth you are back to a chicken and egg scenario. Except we have finite age for heavy elements so even his theories say that life evolved.

mikeyjames9

lanomist wrote: »

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Keeps the bananas in check

smcgiff

mikeyjames9 wrote: »

Keeps the bananas in check

I for one would welcome our new banana overlords.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In fairness, I think the question isn't whether or not genes play some role, clearly they should do. The questions that are more tricky are:

Is all this not exactly what I just said? "in fairness".

Panrich wrote: »

When you look around at people who deny the reality of evolution and others who wage war in the name of their mythical 'creators', it really does make you wonder where we are headed as a species.

There are a lot more things that than which give me that worry. A random example would be the prevalence of buildings in the US which are missing a 13th floor for the sole reason that some people are scared of a number.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Creation Science is one theory.

When using the word "science" one should be careful about using the word "theory" alongside it as "theory" in science has a different meaning than in the vernacular. What Creationism is is a hypothesis. And one that is currently lacking any substantiation that I know of.

Which is why this is of interest to me:

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

With a lot of evidence and reason behind it.

Could you adumbrate for us the content of this "lots" of evidence and reason?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is a lot your science cannot explain.

This is another area to be careful with language. There are many things we have NOT explained using our sciences, but that is NOT the same as saying they CANNOT be explained by science.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Which Creation Science does.

Wishful thinking and imagination are not explanations.

nozzferrahhtoo

J C wrote: »

I see ... a vertebrate virus ... so is Ebola and invertebrate one?:eek: Apes, viruses ... and Men ... sounds like the title for a new Monty Python sketch!!!:) That is why Creation Scientists are needed ... to keep some check on Evolutionist 'flights of fancy' ... and to keep them focused on reality.:)

It was not a science point. It was a linguistic one. Try again.

PopePalpatine

catallus wrote: »

Praise the Lord!

Oh come on, you're definitely trolling now.

Hoop66

You think?

Vivisectus

paddy1990 wrote: »

Good. You are striving for an illusion. I still don't think you quite understand the implications of the meaningless and arbitrary nature of how that illusion formed and became hard wired into you.

For example, if generations of your ancestors went around killing and eating other people, so much so that this behavior was hard wired into them to produce happiness and joy, then your biochemical pathways for happiness, satisfaction, joy etc would be activated when you kill a person and eat them. Since your ancestors for generations upon generations did this. This is one example and what im trying to say here is that the actual biochemical pathway that gets activated (which in itself formed arbitrarily) is completely meaningless.

Emotions and beliefs are myths, in Darwinian logic. The only reason we have them is that they serve in the propagation of genes.

I believe that Darwinists refuse or cannot live their lives according to pure Darwinism because life would simply be completely meaningless. So they have to buy into this delusion.

I'm really trying to articulate the absolute meaningless of life in Darwinian terms.

I am not at all sure what you mean by "Darwinian logic". Your version of "darwinism" seems to be a combination of evolutionary theory and strict materialism, not at all what is generally meant by the term.

And you seem to be confusing the theoretical origin of emotions with their experience: why would a belief that empathy is an evolved trait change one jot of how a person experiences empathy?

Does the realization that a painting is a collection of blobs of paint make you experience it's beauty differently?

Tordelback

Vivisectus wrote: »

Does the realization that a painting is a collection of blobs of paint make you experience it's beauty differently?

Well yes, it does, but in most cases understanding how the work was created enhances the experience.

Vivisectus

Well, great. Another perfectly good simile wrecked :P

endacl

Vivisectus wrote: »

Well, great. Another perfectly good simile wrecked :P

*ahem* metaphor.

Vivisectus

Creation Science is one theory.

...which tends to include:

- Magical climate-equalizing clouds
- Vegetarian tyrannosaurs, spiders and sharks (Not talking about basking sharks here either!)
- Every animal and plant from every imaginable climate and every known fossil layer living in the same spot and at the same time
- A universe which is less than 10.000 years old
- Magic stars with light that was created already 99% of the way to earth
- Magic fossilization - turn bone into stone almost instantly thanks to "water-based processes"!
- A magical flood that deposited entire biota neatly sorted into layers, even though they all existed at the same time

Even when they try to stay away from the obvious lunacy, they still tend to spend all their time trying to disprove evolution, because "God did it with magic" is rather a challenging hypothesis to use for a prediction or a test... which does not stop them from hypocritically accusing evolution of this.

All this despite the fact that even if they succeeded, the hypothesis that a supernatural being did it with magic is still the among the least plausible substitutes! We could consider the theory that some advanced civilization out in space did it in stead... it would be silly, but slightly less silly than creationism as it does not include anything supernatural.

It is like spending all your time trying to disprove the current theory about where babies come from, and then considering that evidence that elves brings them in stead!

Science, ladies and gentlemen!

Vivisectus

endacl wrote: »

*ahem* metaphor.

not an analogy?

endacl

Vivisectus wrote: »

not an analogy?

Now you mention it...

COYVB

How the hell are there so many people who can't grasp something as basic as the theory of evolution still out there?

PopePalpatine

COYVB wrote: »

How the hell are there so many people who can't grasp something as basic as the theory of evolution still out there?

The same reason North Koreans aren't (largely) rising up and rebelling.

Capt'n Midnight

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

COYVB

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The same reason North Koreans aren't (largely) rising up and rebelling.

Koreans aren't taught to rise up and rebel in school

PopePalpatine

COYVB wrote: »

Koreans aren't taught to rise up and rebel in school

Indeed, they're pretty much indoctrinated from birth, much like the vast, vast majority of creationists.

COYVB

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Indeed, they're pretty much indoctrinated from birth, much like the vast, vast majority of creationists.

I wasn't referring to creationists though. I'm talking about regular Joes and Janes out there who fail to grasp the basics of the theory of evolution despite it being taught in schools and being one of the best known scientific theories in history

PopePalpatine

Oh, right. In my secondary school there was a general mandatory science class for the Junior Cert, which had about half-a-dozen-or-so pages on evolution in the textbook. I've forgotten some parts of that class (particularly in chemistry), so it's not unreasonable for someone to forget the ins-and-outs of evolution.

gladrags

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

I know, it's a bit like an evolving door.

endacl

Squeedily Spooch

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What surprises me most is how little the creationist arguments have evolved over time.

Well it falls down to needing a backstory. Scientific theories work on the most solid evidence we have at the time if new evidence should arrive and overwrite the previous theory, well then that's what happens if the new evidence is proven right.
That's why it's so chucklesome when Creationists use the "well science thought the world was flat, ho ho!" line. Yes it did, then we figured out it's not flat. And we now go with what we know and can prove. Yet Creation "Science" still clings on to utterly ludicrous claims that come from it's book of backstorys despite no evidence.
Take away the bible and Creationism simply doesn't work, and that's not real science.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

Evolution for Dummies ... eh!!!!:eek:
... very soon belief in it it will be confined to readers of such stuff!!!:)

... some say it already is!!:)

J C

endacl wrote: »

If you can't make logical evidence-based arguments in favour of Evolution or against Creation ... I guess this is the next best thing!!!:D

kingchess

kingchess wrote: »

so only scientists from maybe two of the three Abrahamic faiths(excluding Judaism??) believe in creation theory?you would think that if the theory was correct people from other faiths would be easily convinced by the facts??

any answer to that question J C????,

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by PopePalpatine

It's better than yours, which is "durrrr its true becuz bibul".

This would be a good start for you and your kind.

Doctor Jimbob
Heh.

Well spotted Dr Jimbob ... I think the Pope (Palpatine) is becoming a Creationist.:)