Darwin's theory

The Corinthian

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, and saying Crick was an early proponent of creatardism is a big fat lie, along the same lines (but not quite the same magnitude) as holocaust denial.

LOL. Quote of the thread.

Is it just me, but do both sides in this debate sound just as crazy and filled with 'religious' fervour as each other after a while? Do not do battle with monsters, etc, I suppose...

yellowlabrador wrote: »

the evolutionary adam and eves didn t live at the same time or in the same place,so there goes the garden of eden....

So the garden of Eden was before they lived together? In fairness that does make sense.

MrPudding

floggg wrote: »

If you looked at the context, they was tge point.

A law professor isn't a good authority on advanced biology and evolution - what he is though is skilled at editing and presenting facts in a way which supports whatever argument he is asked to advance.

I knew that was what you meant (I am studying law myself), I just wanted to say creatards. Sorry.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

But why does the earthworm compost?








:pac:

Took me tree dace to read the thread, but I've your answer for you James, and it goes something like this:

"om, nom, nom, nom. There's good eatin' in dem dere clumps of hummus. Oh hold up a minute, gotta poop out all dat clay."

floggg

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Took me tree dace to read the thread, but I've your answer for you James, and it goes something like this:

"om, nom, nom, nom. There's good eatin' in dem dere clumps of hummus. Oh hold up a minute, gotta poop out all dat clay."

In fairness, Aldi do a lovely lime and coriander hummus. Great with some sliced carrots or some posh crackers.

gladrags

It appears that empirical evidence,and sustainable biological research has no bearing on religous theory.

Microbes preceded other species,and probably will outlast same,given adaptability.

Crick an Watson's character assasination is beyond words.Their recent (1953) discovery,which applies to all living organisms,which identifies the biological link,cannot be approached or explained away by religous theory.


To suggest that DNA,RNA can be explained away, in the context of a single species of animal,is narrow minded.

It is merely passed on by humans,and was,prior to the arrival of humans.

Philo Beddoe

osarusan wrote: »

I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.

Arguing with posters who clearly will never be swayed by evidence can be frustrating and seem pointless. What we have to remember is that there are always other people reading who may have been convinced by the BS unless someone was there with a rational counter-argument.

iDave

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

Philo Beddoe

iDave wrote: »

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

No, all humans are descended from her.

Wibbs

All modern humans alive today that we know about are descended from her line. In the past other humans that came after that line kicked off came from a different one, but those lines died out. I added the "that we know about" part as there may still be people out there who have a slightly different ancestry. They just haven't had their genetics profiled yet. EG with the Y chromosome "Adam" they had an age for him and his kind mapped out, until an African American dudes DNA was found to be slightly different. Then a bunch of lads in Cameroon had the same different line, so they had to go further back for the last common ancestor of the currently surviving male lines. Out of the billions of people on this planet we just don't have a big enough sample size. Yet.

This stuff is complex. EG Mungo man who I mentioned earlier. A fully modern human, the earliest known from Australia at 40 odd 1000 years old(may even be earlier). His "Eve" line is different than ours today. He's not even related to living native Australians. More he looks more "modern" in features than some later native Australians.

Edgarfrndly

iDave wrote: »

Can those who know what they are talking about answer this please. (That excludes creationists)
Genuine curiosity needing an answer.
The Mitochondrial 'eve', am I right in saying only non Africans can trace their decent to her? And Africans are not descended from her?

Mitochondrial Eve is the last common female ancestor between all living humans.

Brian Shanahan

catallus wrote: »

To live with the banal philosophical security offered by the godless is incomprehensible to me.

No poetry or speculation at all

Richard Feynman debunked this offensive piece of tripe many years ago, so I'll let it to him to show you how wrong you are:

I think that if you watch the above properly with the right intentions and open-mindedness, you'll find that your view is the one is barren and banal, a philosophy not worth living with.

J C

floggg wrote: »

As a lawyer, can I just saw we very much aren't.

We are trained to know the law and legal procedure, and how to use that for the benefit of our clients.

A large part of our job involves putting forth arguments we don't necessarily belive in ourselves.

Efit: just to clarify, I'm not saying we are the lying conniving con men we are made out to be.

But our job is to represent our clients interests not our own, so sometimes that will mean putting forward a somewhat shaky position or argument in the best way we can in the hopes of getting a result for them.

We don't outright lie (at least we shouldn't), but we are often required to try and interpret the facts in a way which suits a narrative, rather than searching for an objective truth.

... so you don't lie ... and you present the argument as well as you can ... that was what I said.
... and the lawyers on the other side do the same.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yep, it's where the christians picked up the concept of hell from. Judaism had no such concept at the time christianity got going, so they borrowed from their most numerous converts in the early days (the early days of chrisitianity being at about 100CE), former polytheistic Greeks.

The Jews have always believed in Hades aka Sheol.
Christians go to Heaven after death, and non-Christians (including Jews) go to Hades.

Hades has been frequently confused with Hell. The two are not the same.
Hades / Sheol is temporary, while Hell is final.
Hell or Heaven are the final destinations after the Judgment.

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

The Jews have always believed in Hades aka Sheol.
Christians go to Heaven after death, and non-Christians (including Jews) go to Hades.

Hades has been frequently confused with Hell. The two are not the same.
Hades / Sheol is temporary, while Hell is final.
Hell or Heaven are the final destinations after the Judgment.

Thanks, I wasnt aware of the distinction. Interesting, even if as others here have shown, its a distinction in story telling from a few thousand years ago.
(Is mythology the correct term for this kind of stuff or has it a more specific meaning ?)

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

A guy in a sitcom on the telly got a calculation wrong and this proves huh?

Is this the level of infantile argument you have slipped to?

The real reason you've been arguing this stuff for 9 years is because you keeping failing Sophistry 101 in law school.

... it's a bit of craic ... but that moment ... when it finally dawns that 'molecules to man evolution' never happened ... is something like what happened to Sheldon Cooper in the clip.:)

I know ... I was that soldier!!!

... and Sheldon ended with the observation that "now I'm worse than a fraud ... I'm practically a Biologist"!!!

I wonder what could he possibly mean?:pac:

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thanks, I wasnt aware of the distinction. Interesting, even if as others here have shown, its a distinction in story telling from a few thousand years ago.
(Is mythology the correct term for this kind of stuff or has it a more specific meaning ?)

... there is plenty of story telling going on on this thread and elsewhere.
The Atheists tell stories that suit their beliefs ... and the Theists theirs.

... the key job is to logically wade through all of the stories ... and come out the other side with something approaching the truth.:)

J C

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ *heads desk*. How can anyone be so ill informed. TBH when Mitochondrial "Eve" was first described it galled me that they decided the discovery of this person(rather a group of women) was to be dumbed down for the cheap seats and named "Eve". I just knew the dribblers and the fcuktards would be out in force shouting "see the Bible was right".

Denial is a terrible (and foul-mouthed) thing.:eek::)

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

... there is plenty of story telling going on on this thread and elsewhere.
The Atheists tell stories that suit their beliefs ... and the Theists theirs.

... the key job is to logically wade through all of the stories ... and come out the other side with something approaching the truth.:)

I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all? They just observe evidence and test theories that explain stuff. And jetison the theory if it does not pass the test. And so they dont have stories.

But the theists do have beliefs, i.e draw conclusions without evidence. And drawn entirely from one story, which it seems was just written a few thousand years ago by ignorant people. And so is valueless today, and the theists are just either the most stupid in society, or those whose intellect cannot break free of an obsolete human facility to latch on to an idea even when their reason can easily contradict it.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

Denial is a terrible (and foul-mouthed) thing.

No, it's frustration you're seeing. Frustration that once again you've resorted to "I know you are, but what am I, na-na-nana-na!"

J C

osarusan wrote: »

I'm surprised that so many posters still seem to under the assumption that logical argument will actually have an effect, and that a failure to be convinced up to this point is down to insufficient evidence.

... I have found that too.

Everyone would be a Creationist, at this stage if logic or evidence had anything to do with it ... how can adults with science degrees look at Pondslime ... and conclude that it could ever become anything but Pondslime?

... and ye then say that ye don't believe in miracles.:)

Doctor Jimbob

PopePalpatine wrote: »

No, it's frustration you're seeing. Frustration that once again you've resorted to "I know you are, but what am I, na-na-nana-na!"

J C wrote: »

... I have found that too.

Everyone would be a Creationist, at this stage if logic or evidence had anything to do with it ... how can adults with science degrees look at Pondslime ... and conclude that it could ever become anything but Pondslime?

... and ye then say that ye don't believe in miracles.:)

Lol

Ah ninja edits.

floggg

J C wrote: »

... so you don't lie ... and you present the argument as well as you can ... that was what I said.
... and the lawyers on the other side do the same.

Unsurprisingly, you're comprehension skills are wanting.

The point is that lawyers job isn't to present the objective truth. They only put forth those facts which support their particular argument.

So you're argument that a law professor is a good authority on evolution because lawyers are trained to find and present the trust is absurdly fanciful. His skill is twisting the facts to support an argument - and so if anythinso his professional training should suggest he's only presenting one side of the argument.

Tordelback

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all?

Everyone has beliefs. Atheists just don't believe in gods. As the name suggests.

Some atheists come to this position through science, but many others through philosophy, through life experience and simple reflection.

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

I though the atheists meant they have no beliefs at all? They just observe evidence and test theories that explain stuff. And jetison the theory if it does not pass the test. And so they dont have stories.

The fact that Atheists have beliefs ... and beliefs that they are prepared to vociferously and strongly defend ... is proven by even a casual reading of this thread.

Everyone has beliefs ... but Atheists find their erroneous claim that they are the only people in the World without beliefs a useful 'flag of convenience' to hide under ... as they spread their beliefs far and wide onto an unsuspecting public.

A question ... if you guys deny and hide something that everybody can see (that ye have beliefs) ... what else could you be denying and hiding?

... could it be things that undermine and destroy your beliefs ... like the invalidity of Evolution?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But the theists do have beliefs, i.e draw conclusions without evidence. And drawn entirely from one story, which it seems was just written a few thousand years ago by ignorant people. And so is valueless today, and the theists are just either the most stupid in society, or those whose intellect cannot break free of an obsolete human facility to latch on to an idea even when their reason can easily contradict it.

Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... but they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread are.

Ye do your argument no favours by denying something as obvious as the fact that ye have very strong beliefs.

Doctor Jimbob

You're equating atheism and evolution again.

They aren't the same thing.

What about those of various religions who have no problem with evolution?

smcgiff

J C wrote: »

The idea that Atheists have beliefs ... and beliefs that they are prepared to vociferously and strongly defend ... is proven by even a casual reading of this thread.

Everyone has beliefs ... but Atheists find their erroneous claim that they are the only people in the World without beliefs a useful 'flag of convenience' to hide under ... as they spread their beliefs far and wide onto an unsuspecting public.

A question ... if you guys deny and hide something that everybody can see (that ye have beliefs) ... what else could you be denying and hiding?

... could it be things that undermine a
nd destroy your beliefs ... like the invalidity of Evolution?

Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... and they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread areare.

Atheists believe that if they walk off a building they will fall.

You believe an omnipotent being gives a damn about what an insignificant being like you (or anybody) gets up to.

BIG Difference

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

Of course Theists have beliefs ... just like everyone has beliefs... and they aren't in denial of the fact that they have beliefs ... like the Atheists on this thread are.

Ye do your argument no favours by denying something as obvious as the fact that ye have very strong beliefs.

OK. So the atheists have 'belief' in science, although I guess that depends on the definition of belief.
And the theists have belief in what are obsolete historic myths but are unable to align their belief with their reason.

Are the theists the smartest guys in the room though : their intelligence allows them to ignore reason, facts, and the benefit of modern knowledge, and let their minds cling to an inbuilt human characteristic of believing myths to provide answers to questions that trouble them and their knowledge cannot answer ?

And the atheists are unable to bridge the facts they know to be true and enjoy the comfort of the delusional anwsers, but acclimatise to that position?

J C

Tordelback wrote: »

Everyone has beliefs. Atheists just don't believe in gods. As the name suggests.

Some atheists come to this position through science, but many others through philosophy, through life experience and simple reflection.

... and Theists are just the same.

I came to my to my belief in Creation through science, mathematics, philosophy and reflection.

Doctor Jimbob

I'm going to try to deal with the repeated claim that evolutionism and creationism are equivalent in that they're both different ways of interpreting the evidence to fit a given worldview. I'll ignore for the moment which is more likely, I just want to deal with that one claim.

Evolution is supported by those of all religions and none, regardless of their personal beliefs in how life, the universe, and everything came about.

Creationism is supported by a select group of religions, and it fits their worldview.

Which one is more likely to be based on an objective interpretation of the evidence?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're equating atheism and evolution again.

They aren't the same thing.

... I have never come across an Atheist who didn't believe in Evolution.
... its a key part of their worldview ... which holds to a belief in a Universe without God ... that 'created itself'.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

What about those of various religions who have no problem with evolution?

I guess that on the 'origins issue' they are Practical Atheists.