Darwin's theory

Doctor Jimbob

Chunners wrote: »

So what you are basically saying is it evolves? actually what you are saying is it has the ability to evolve in the space of a year, well done on proving God there

Oh this is nothing, over in A&A he was using evolution to disprove evolution.

Chunners

J C wrote: »

It would be thee bones of Dinosaurs, sea and land-based creatures.

Oh I know it would but the bones of creatures that existed before 6000 years ago? does that not make your bible a lie?

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Yes the Flu virus changes continually ... but it always remains true to its Kind ... which is a virus.
... and the challenge is to predict which strain of the virus is going to be problematical ... and therefore requires vaccination against each year.

There are no "kinds" in evolution. Stop saying that.

The rest sounds like you agree that evolution is true.

Saganist

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Oh this is nothing, over in A&A he was using evolution to disprove evolution.

Probably wouldn't have bothered entering the "debate" had I know that.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

So what you are basically saying is it evolves? actually what you are saying is it has the ability to evolve in the space of a year, well done on proving God there

Many things 'evolve' in the sense of NS acting on pre-existing genetic diversity. However, the fact that the genetic diversity is CFSI means that it has an ultimate intelligent source ... and that is where the real debate is at ... and I believe that it has been settled in favour of ID.
The lack of any scientifically valid criticism on this thread of the basis for ID also supports this conclusion.

J C

Chunners wrote: »

Oh I know it would but the bones of creatures that existed before 6000 years ago?

How do you know that?

kingchess

The taking part is a lot of fun for me as well.I had heard of ID before this thread but did not really know about it or the science behind it, but now-thanks to J C- I have looked into it in more detail and discovered that there is no science behind it, so a big thank you to you, JC.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Many things 'evolve'

Just this statement makes you look foolish...

ID has no credibility whatsoever.. It's just simple Creationism wrapped up in a semi-smart sounding name.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob
Oh this is nothing, over in A&A he was using evolution to disprove evolution.

Proves that I have no bias against evolution per se ... I just have problems with the logical inconsistencies between different kinds of 'evolution'.

wrote:

Saganist
Probably wouldn't have bothered entering the "debate" had I know that.

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.
We have a hypothesis to evaluate.

Saganist

J C wrote: »

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.

Sorry, but, this is why I think you are a troll.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Just this statement makes you look foolish...

Why?

I accept that 'evolution' occurs in the sense of 'genetic drift' within populations under the influence of NS of pre-existing genetic diversity.
All we're arguing over is the source of this diversity.

Saganist wrote: »

ID has no credibility whatsoever.. It's just simple Creationism wrapped up in a semi-smart sounding name.

ID has scientific merit.

Who or what the intelligence(s) was/were is unknown ... but intelligence seems to have been the prime motor for the existence of life.

housetypeb

J C, Boards equivalent of a certain chess playing pigeon.

J C

Saganist wrote: »

Sorry, but, this is why I think you are a troll.

You have said you were not going to take any further part in the thread twice.
You are quite entitled to do so ... but it is a bit like 'chickening out' when you use excuses for leaving like a disagreement over whether rocks are 'dead' or 'inanimate' ... and now because somebody told you that I used the logical basis for one type of evolution to argue the invalidity of another type of evolution.:)

Brian Shanahan

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ah the virgin birth, or how one woman's attempt to cover up a child born out of wedlock spiralled wildly out of control.

Actually it's more a case of godbotherers not being able to translate from Aramaic to Greek properly. The Aramaic word "almah" used in the relevant prophecy the Jesus followers were trying to use to prove his divinity, could possibly mean "virgin" in some extremely constrained and specific circumstances, but not in those of the original old testament prophecy where it translated in the more common usage, as "young woman" (the prophecy had nothing to do with fortelling Jesus, but assuring a Jewish king that he would outlast his enemies). So the whole problem with the virgin birth is simply due to a number of Greek converts (which were by far the majority of early christians) not knowing their Aramaic properly when they tried to retcon their messiah into Jewish tradition and prophecy.

PopePalpatine

If Darwinism is dead, does that make creationism a lonely sperm that didn't even make it to the egg?

5uspect

J C wrote: »

Proves that I have no bias against evolution per se ... I just have problems with the logical inconsistencies between different kinds of 'evolution'.

Please don't start 'chickening out' on me.
We have a hypothesis to evaluate.

And yet you haven't shown these claimed errors in the scientific literature when invited, numerous times. Not a single paper. But that's okay, nobody believes your a real scientist anyway.

J C

housetypeb wrote: »

J C, Boards equivalent of a certain chess playing pigeon.

A chess playing pigeon would indeed be a sight to behold.:)
... but even a pigeon probably knows that its not glorified pondscum that has taken to the air ... with nothing added but time and mistakes.:D

the_monkey

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

Just read this before thinking of responding to JC.

Then don't respond.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If Darwinism is dead, does that make creationism a lonely sperm that didn't even make it to the egg?

Is that an infallible pronouncement on your part ... or just wishful thinking?:)

Brian Shanahan

Saganist wrote: »

Is that what you tell your doctor when he prescribes you a medicine that was produced via the study of evolutionary biology ?

Or do you take his word for it ? :pac:

I asked him a pretty similar question about six months ago (about whether he takes antibacterial drugs when perscribed). I'm still waiting for an answer (despite repeated reminders).

I'd advise not holding your breath when waiting for yours.

irish coldplayer

kingchess wrote: »

The taking part is a lot of fun for me as well.I had heard of ID before this thread but did not really know about it or the science behind it, but now-thanks to J C- I have looked into it in more detail and discovered that there is no science behind it, so a big thank you to you, JC.

I hadn't realised that Intelligent Design had essentially become a business in itself. People competing for research grants for at best dubious, and at worst completely bogus research paid for by christian fundamentalist groups.
There are so many sciencey sounding Institutes peddling this crap online as well all paid for by the bible belt.
All in the name of trying to keep clutching at straws that the Universe could only have been made by their God.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic, there are people out there intentionally fueling this fire while most likely in the knowledge that its really all hokum.

J C

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I asked him a pretty similar question about six months ago (about whether he takes antibacterial drugs when perscribed). I'm still waiting for an answer (despite repeated reminders).

I'd advise not holding your breath when waiting for yours.

Of course I take antibacterial drugs when and as prescribed.
... and I answered Saganist here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92708844&postcount=2028

J C

the_monkey wrote: »

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/119-why-i-won-39-t-debate-creationists

Just read this before thinking of responding to JC.

Then don't respond.

Richard does talk to Creationists ... and does respond to them

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

Of course I take antibacterial drugs when and as prescribed.
... and I answered Saganist here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92708844&postcount=2028

Do you worry occasionally about MRSA or VRE? If so, why?

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

From a medical perspective can they be classed as delusional or even insane ?

I would not say so no. Being misled, wrong or emotionally invested in a false idea does not mean you are insane. It just means you are human. It is too easy for people on one side of an argument to declare people on the other insane. I do not think this attains anything but corrode discourse. And I avoid (religiously) anything that is corrosive to human discourse.

As I said there are many evolutionary facts that leave us prone to infection by the meme of religion. And we are only a barely rational species. We like arguments from emotion more than arguments from rationality. And as such it will be a long time before unbelievers will out number believers. But the trends ARE there and I am happy to see them.

It sounds however like the books "The Believing Brain" and "Why people believer weird things" both by Micheal Shermer might be a great starting point for your further research on the idea.

Vivisectus

In all fairness, JC does not deny evolution itself, just deep time evolution. Note how in his narrative all spiders that are not in the same family as harvestmen evolved deadly venom after the fall - before the fall they used their fangs to suck plant juices, and their venom and venom glands where just huge saliva glands.

So he admits that evolution exists, and that it leads to significant changes.

As far as I understand it his position is that things have just been getting worse since creation, which was perfect (perfect for what?) and only bad evolution happens, and it only effects small changes that do not create serious changes in the overall body-plan. These are called "kinds" in wider ID circles, because that is a word that gets used in the king james bible.

In this narrative we do get what they call "micro-evolution" and ID adherents can explain why their favorite weed-killer stops working if you use it year after year on the same patch of weeds, or why it is so easy to breed fruitflies without wings or with extra legs by simply changing the way they are selected, and why we need to create more and more new anti-bacterial drugs as the pesky little buggers keep evolving new resistances, while at the same time not having to concede any ground in areas they find important.

So when you see a burrowing skink with vestigial legs that has developed membranes to shield it's eyes from the sand, they do not see that as lizards on a convergent evolutionary path with snakes, probably driven by similar selective pressures from their environment: they just see skinks with no legs, possibly degenerating away from their perfect skink-ness, or perhaps just going through a little micro-evolution... though they tend to get uncomfortable around that one as it gets very close to a change in "kinds".

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Richard does talk to Creationists ... and does respond to them

I hope you didn't post that to bolster your case. She is clearly a fcuking idiot that simply refuses to accept or acknowledge anything that goes against her religious world view.

Actually JC, I know this has been brought up before, are you a woman? Is that actually you in the video?

MrP

Vivisectus

J C wrote: »

Richard does talk to Creationists ... and does respond to them

"Concerned Women for America"!

Someone took that particular brand of self-satisfied WASP concern-trolling and made a career out of it!

If I had seen that in different circumstances, I would really wonder if it was a parody of some sort.

PopePalpatine

Vivisectus wrote: »

"Concerned Women for America"!

Someone took that particular brand of self-satisfied WASP concern-trolling and made a career out of it!

If I had seen that in different circumstances, I would really wonder if it was a parody of some sort.

It seems more like "Concerned Women for 'MURICA". :pac:

the_monkey

MrPudding wrote: »

I hope you didn't post that to bolster your case. She is clearly a fcuking idiot that simply refuses to accept or acknowledge anything that goes against her religious world view.

Actually JC, I know this has been brought up before, are you a woman? Is that actually you in the video?

MrP

here here , and this isn´t a debate anyway in a traditional sense.