Darwin's theory

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.

catallus wrote: »

Praise the Lord!

Oh come on, you're definitely trolling now.

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?

Well, great. Another perfectly good simile wrecked :P

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 wrote: »

not an analogy?

Now you mention it...

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 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 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

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.:)