BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:37 PM

mrrzy, as I was saying to dmcg, and your post illustrates the point, what is observable, repeatable testable science, is described as Darwinist rules, but Darwinism asserts [as I assume you do] that microbes to man evolution can be extrapolated from that. the examples you give do not evidence the latter.

Microbes to human doesn't need to be extrapolated, it's in the molecular data. Look at the microbes that *make* people - only about 1 in 100 cells in you are coded for my *your* dna, the rest are one-celled animals that live within your cells and make your tissues work. The tree of life is fairly well established but you have to have a microscope to see us on it, since there are so very few species that are multicellular or big enough for us to see. We are at the very end of a twig at the very end of a tiny branch called Animals-and-Fungi; the rest of the entire tree is branch after branch upon bough after bough of microbes going back to a single trunk.
Here are a bunch of illustrations; this one shows it like a usual tree, but there are plenty of better visual representations like this or this.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 05:41 PM

>> Clinging to the tale of genesis doesn't make you a better christian.

>As most major Christian denominations agree (see upthread).

>So what *does* it do?

Possibly exemplifies the Sin of Pride in the service of faith?

Just askin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 06:05 PM

>So what *does* it do?

Makes one a brain-dead idiot?

Just askin'.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 07:57 PM

We need to clear one or two things up here. Evolution by natural section has nothing to do with the favouring or disfavouring of individuals within a species. Natural selection is concerned with the non-random (think about it) survival - survival - of heritable traits (as Darwin might have said) or genes (as we might say) within gene pools. The weakest and slowest wildebeest might well be the one caught by the lioness, but don't jump to conclusions here. That poor beest might have got caught because it was a bit older and therefore slower, or because it had an injured back leg, or because it was lumbered with a huge foetus inside it. Nothing there to do with genes. That poor thing might well have lived a full reproductive life before it got caught. Its genes will go on and on. The only way its genes will not go on and on, or go on and on a bit less, is if it gets caught young, or is somehow a bit less appealing to males. Discuss! Let's counsel against being simplistic. Please read "Origin" cover to cover. Especially before you bombard me with PMs telling me how I'm getting it so "tactically" wrong apropos of idiot pete. Honestly, guys, he doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:00 PM

Pete- I don't remember if I posted this link before--- I assume I must have, but I hope you will read it... about 9 times

I have an answer to another of your points about 'disagreements within science', but it will require some scanning or typing that my head cold is not ready for.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:13 PM

but I hope you will read it

Bill, have you missed the ten thousand times where pete has said he doesn't read and won't read anything that contradicts his delusions?

I'm beginning to think you're as fuckwitted as he is, if not more so!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:31 PM

The bit in Bill's link "Misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation" is worth a look. There, Bill, you see - I do follow things up. You won't be wasting your time on me, but, sure as eggs is eggs, you're wasting your time on pete. It's even worse than that, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Oct 14 - 08:52 PM

All I can do is provide answers.. I am technically addressing Pete, but I am really just replying to the entire fundamentalist view, to allow anyone who cares to see the best information.

It is a bit more work than short, sniping insults, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:42 AM

As I thought Steve and are in extremely close agreement, and I can certainly interpret what he wrote so that I am in 100% agreement. From a different perspective I have a relatively minor disagreement, so let"s go through things in more detail.

I fully concur that what matters for evolution is a non-uniform distribution of genes in the pool. No question here.

Also, if an individual dies for whatever reason any of its genes (ignoring direct mutations) may well be present in a sibling, cousin or more distant relative. So one could say the death of the individual is not important. Also, I am fully aware that focussing on the individual risks losing sight of the fact it is genes that are important, or even totally unaware of them, which can lead to also of confusion and, as the sorry history of eugenics shows, much worse. Finally, of course, when students are being taught it is most important that they understand it is the gene not the individual that matters.

So far, I think, Steve and I are fully aligned. I am certainly opposed to any simplistic understanding of what the role of the individual is.

We can even go further. When the theory of evolution is expressed these days, it usually does so without any mention of individuals at all.

So what is this minor disagreement I mentioned? simply this. For many species, by no means all, there is a correlation between the number offspring and the length of life of the parent. That is, for many species there is not a single mating, it continues for a substantial part of their life. And this has a direct bearing on what genes @from that invidual@ are in the gene pool. I must emphasise again that the same gene could also be present from a relative of varying degrees of closeness. But tit this direct passing on why I can't go quite as far as Steve in saying deaths of individuals are not important, though yet again I must emphasise they are only one factor in the complex web.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 03:57 AM

I know the debate has moved on in the last 24 hours, but I'm still laughing from where I pointed out the silliness of God and being in his image, and being told I was the one being silly for not understanding how it works...

You couldn't make it up.

Although someone obviously did.
👼👹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:05 AM

Sorry for the large number of grammatical and typing errors in that: I dashed it off while being summoned to breakfast, so it was a bit "flow of concioisness" in style!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:21 AM

Ed T's link to the Faulkner piece was interesting, mainly because of the final paragraph:

" As with the question of origins, we must strive to interpret these things on our terms, guided by the Bible. Do the new theories adequately describe the world? Can we see the hand of the Creator in our new physics? Can we find meaning in our studies that brings glory to God? If we can answer yes to each of these questions, then these new theories ought not to be a problem for the Christian."

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth: creationist and other fundamentalist christians ignore scientific method and cannot let the facts speak for themselves. They have to see everything as though through the distorting lens of religious dogma and are subject to almost ludicrous confirmation bias. These people are charlatans plain and simple; they approach scientific research from the outset expecting to find "the hand of the creator". They're not setting out to test a hypotheses as they don't have one, only an immovable and unquestionable a priori assumption (something pete accuses people like me of) that everything shows the hand of god.

Madness.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 04:47 AM

Musket, do you really believe that the person who thought we were made in God's image did not know that we all look different?
Even a blind person can distinguish individuals!

Do you really think you have found a serious intellectual floor in the argument because you noticed we all look different?

You are trying so hard to make a contribution to the debate, but you don't know anything and understand less.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 05:41 AM

I appreciate your link, Bill D. Although, of course, pete won't because (a) he probably won't read it, and (b) if he does read it, he will dismiss it out of hand because it contradicts his "world view".

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:26 AM

I understand your superstition clouds objective thought.

I wonder if dinosaurs were in his image when they thought they were top dog?

Are we second choice? That would explain a lot regarding his indifference to those who claim him as a hero that exists. Willie Nelson said 90% of us are with our second choice of partner, that's why we have juke boxes.

Are you really trying to discuss biblical nonsense as real? I brought up the image nonsense as a point of creationism ignoring evolution, not to discuss the likelihood of your imaginary friend, you oaf.

😹😹😹

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:52 AM

> only an immovable and unquestionable a priori assumption (something pete accuses people like me of)

Freud calls it "projection."

Freud, of course, was a theorist, not a scientist. The bible, however, seems to concur in the line about not seeing the beam in your own eye.

But you don't need to be a scientist or a theologian to see projection at work every day.

Since no mainstream Christian denomination requires belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis, Pete should consider whether his determination to disprove thye facts of evolution (which would make him smarter than, say, Darwin, Dawkins, and Gould combined) really is a Sin of Pride, a sin that might be shared with other creationists.

If he thinks there's any chance that it is, it might be wise for him to stop now. And if not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:39 AM

Musket, man in God's image never meant we all have to look the same.
Pointing out that we don't is not an intellectual achievement on your part.
It just shows that you completely failed to understand the whole concept!
You so want to be part of the debate but you lack any knowledge or understanding.
Stick to name calling.

Are you really trying to discuss biblical nonsense as real?

No.

I brought up the image nonsense as a point of creationism ignoring evolution,

Then you show your ignorance of the concept once again.

not to discuss the likelihood of your imaginary friend, you oaf.

I was not discussing that, oaf.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:49 AM

Of course I don't understand the concept. Why should I? I am too rational to believe it and too mentally competent to need it.

Tell you what. I don't understand evolution at the level of Steve and one or two others. We have experts in the field discussing it so I read with interest.

I don't understand the ins and outs of christian superstition because I was raised being told how to think, not what to think.

I most certainly don't understand how some religious people say you have to believe supernatural fairy stories to be a christian whilst others say you can pick and choose the less fantasy claims and others say you can be a christian who doesn't actually have belief whilst looking down on the superstituous and vulnerable members.



So... Which parts of the grown ups' debate do you claim to understand?

👪

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:33 AM

I have been following it with interest Musket, but could not let pass such nonsense as,
"Belly button apart, which of us is in his image? The European looking Middle East blokes in Renaissance paintings? A nazi inspired Aryan soldier? An Australian aboriginal? A Zulu child? A Pakistani Imam?"

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:43 AM

"I wonder if dinosaurs were in his image when they thought they were top dog?"

With 10,000+ species of dinosaurs extant, they are still top dog. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:04 AM

It is a bit more work than short, sniping insults, Greg.

Possibly, Bill - but it is also considerably more useless and more of a waste of time...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:07 AM

"... do you really believe that the person who thought we were made in God's image did not know that we all look different?
Even a blind person can distinguish individuals!"

So if that is the the "literal truth"... why the clinging to a 6 day creation, etc.??? Anyone with an open mind and even a modicum of scientific understanding accepts the evidence of our own eyes/viewing equipment that the universe is billions of years in age and that it took three generations of stars to generate the heavier elements that are needed for life on earth to exist... still waiting for the evidence of extraterrestrial lifeforms...

We can't help it if some folks chose to remain blind... and uninformed. Though we are trying to help you out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:39 AM

I am not a creationist.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 10:43 AM

....and the first generation of stars produced the elements not provided in the Bang.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Musket
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:09 AM

Just in case you weren't taken in by the first post

😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 12:07 PM

"Possibly, Bill - but it is also considerably more useless and more of a waste of time..."

MORE useless than sniping insults? *grin*.. I'll waste my time in my manner, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 05:32 PM

I'll waste my time in my manner, thank you.

Waste yout time any way you want, Bill - as long as you don't harbor any notions that its anything BUT a waste of time.

As I said, below, if you enjoy matching wits[sic] with an idiot, knock yourself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:31 PM

Yep. A bit like those blokes who sit there all day on the bank of Bude canal with thousands of pounds' worth of cutting-edge super-lightweight titanium-coated carbon-fibre equipment, to try, mostly unsuccessfully, to catch....a bloody carp.

OK, so I made up the bit about titanium-coated... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 06:53 PM

I would not be so unfeeling as to state that the deaths of individuals are unimportant. We are talking here about the mechanisms of evolution, remember. As I keep trying to say, evolution is predicated on survival, not on "weeding out". That is not what natural section is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:03 PM

for all I know, greg may be very intelligent, and have a string of letters after his name, but I cant recall a single post that betrays his great mind.
bill, I read the relevant bit of the link. I think you can see that though it purports to demonstrate evolution as observable science, the examples it gave only related to changes within the organism . they call it evolution. then they talk about pond scum to people , and call that evolution, as though it were the same thing. what it is, is bait and switch. best wishes for head clearing.
mrrzy, best I can see, your post describes what you believe rather than demonstrating microbes to man type evolution. I found it strange that you describe single cells as an animal ?.
sciencegeek, you are right in suggesting that going into college level might well lose me, and so you have to again use the argument from authority. but I suspect, that if you could demonstrate that evolution happened beyond change/adaption within the kind, you would do so. tec stuff has been posted before, and although beyond me in details, I could see that it did not evidence slime to sciencegeek evolution.
and who said anything about being a better Christian ?. were I a complete hypocrite, it would not have any bearing on the argument itself. that was not a constructive...dare I say it, scientific...argument imo !

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:12 PM

A bit of historical context to the science of evolution, including the contribution of
Lamarak. Lamrak's early contribution was mostly forgotten, until recently, when some of his theories were found to hold more water than it seemed.


Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck 

Lamarckian Evolution 

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:14 PM

re stu.-yeh we see through the lens of religious dogma, just like evolutionists see through the lens of Darwinian dogma.
steve,- does not " the preservation of favoured races " not presuppose the "weeding out" of those not so favoured ?.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:46 PM

I've said nothing about the preservation of anything, you ignorant git. Evolution has no goals, least of all the "preservation" of anything. Why don't you just toddle off (for good, preferably), and go and misrepresent yourself (instead of me) to your fellow delusionals, and stop misrepresenting good, honest science.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 07:47 PM

""does not " the preservation of favoured races " not presuppose the "weeding out" of those not so favoured ?.""

No, it doesn't! Evolution has no goal, target or preference.

What you describe as "weeding out" is nothing more than the inability to adapt sufficiently for survival. There is nothing as purposeful as "weeding out" in that.

And even if all you say about evolution theory were true in every detail, that still isn't evidential proof of the existence of God, the inerrant nature of the bible, or even the need for either to exist.

Instead of belittling and sneering at the achievements of men far exceeding your abilities in any field, why not present YOUR testable and falsifiable evidence for YOUR claims?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 08:53 PM

I have muddled about with the topic for a long time:
from my freshman class in Philosophy, 58 years ago. (from memory)

"Evolution is the integration of matter and the concomitant dissipation of motion, during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity, and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation."

...Herbert Spencer

We had to memorize that: I never did understand what it meant or why it was included in a basic class... except that the old man who taught it also taught religion courses, and it was perhaps a way to avoid Darwin.   

---------------------------------------------------

Pete... "... changes within the organism . they call it evolution. then they talk about pond scum to people , and call that evolution, as though it were the same thing.

Well... there are changes "within the organism" that affect YOU, you highly developed bit of pond scum! We all get common colds because the virus changes so fast.... it evolves quickly.... as does the flu virus. Some diseases can be prevented by vaccination, because the relevant organism does NOT evolve rapidly.

I'm not sure why I neglected to mention this before as an example of evolution in a short time scale.

As to pond scum..(or teeny little whatevers). The evidence is there, whether you choose to accept it or not, that all life began in some primordial bubbling. It is fascinating to follow the attempts to find as many links & details as possible, even knowing we can NEVER assemble all the stages.

You might be interested to know that the guy who found the Burgess shale *(Walcott )and its weird Cambrian fossils was a very religious Presbyterian who had no problem with the 'idea' of evolution, but made some scientific errors in analysis, partly because of his religious training and preconceptions. He believed that God "revealed Himself" thru evolution, but assumed a more regular, simple progression than what we actually see.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 09:27 PM

for all I know, greg may be very intelligent, and have a string of letters after his name, but I cant recall a single post that betrays his great mind.

While there are a plethora of posts, pete, that display your utter and complete mindlessness.

Don't try to be cute because I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Oct 14 - 11:58 PM

mrrzy, best I can see, your post describes what you believe rather than demonstrating microbes to man type evolution. I found it strange that you describe single cells as an animal ?
The pictures I gave you links to show not what I believe, but what is known to science. Molecular genetics is demonstrating, has demonstrated, and continues to show you various ways to diagram the fact of microbe to humanity and to every other living thing. Best you see the pictures, that's why I linked to them for you.

Also, there are one-celled animals and there are one-celled plants. The one cell that gave rise to you wasn't an animal, though, it was just a cell. I wasn't calling all single cells "animals" but the ones whose ecosystem we are aren't plants or fungi, nor are they "us" genetically in the sense of being coded for by the union of our parents' gametes. They do not arise from the zygote that gave rise to us, yet are a basic part of us without which us wouldn't function or be.

We do have a lot of one-celled animals who live amongst our cells within our tissues. If the microbes that live in your skin stop working, you die because your skin stops working. If the microbes that live in your eyelash follicles die your eyelashes fall out. If the ones in your gums die all your teeth fall out, because those "germs" are what make your gums work to keep your teeth in, and so on.

But the microbe-to-all-life is well-established. Which of the diagrams do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 01:31 AM

Troubadour,
isn't evidential proof of the existence of God, the inerrant nature of the bible, or even the need for either to exist.
Instead of belittling and sneering at the achievements of men far exceeding your abilities in any field, why not present YOUR testable and falsifiable evidence for YOUR claims?

Because there is none.
It would be so easy to be a good (insert religion) if there were.
It would limit our free will.
This is about the evidence for evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 02:02 AM

I would drop this little diversion, Steve, but it leads us into an important alley in evolution world, so I will pursue it just a little further. It is not a matter of whether we are feeling or unfeeling about whether an individual survives, it is that the number of offspring directly alters the non uniform distribution of genes we agree is important. Now, at one extreme we have say grasses or locusts. Here instead of the pool containing a million copies of the gene it contains a million and one. whoopie! Yes, the distribution has altered, but a level that is for all practical purposes undetectable. But now let's go to the other extreme, such as tigers. Here there are so few individuals that the gene pool for tigers is tiny: an invidual gene might only have a handful of copies so every new instance is a very large change in the distribution.


And this is where we get to the new alleyway. There may only be say ten copies of that gene in the tiger genetic pool. But there may be millions of the same gene in, say, the domestic cat. So we need to make clear that the survival of the gene and the survival of the species are not as closely linked as one might at first think.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 03:16 AM

" ... tec stuff has been posted before, and although beyond me in details, ..."

Then you've got a lot of work to do, haven't you pete? If you hope to keep up with some of the people posting on this thread, then you need to be a lot better informed than you are. And remember your 'faith', the myths in the Bible, or what you choose to believe or not to believe, or your (f***ing) "world view" are irrelevant; only real world evidence matters. And I hope that you have read that link that Bill D posted above(?) It effortlessly demolishes all of your silly, parroted objections.

Signed,

A human being descended from and sustained by (and occasionally threatened by) single celled organisms (not necessarily "pond scum").

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 04:12 AM

" ... and so you have to again use the argument from authority."

I would suggest, pete, that argument from authority is far superior to argument from 'faith' (i.e. fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for which there's no evidence). After all, you yourself have admitted that you believe that the myths in the Bible represent the literal truth, merely because you have faith that they do.

You also bang on and on and on about the past being unobservable whilst conveniently forgetting that the events recounted in the Bible are unobservable too.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: DMcG
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 08:28 AM

Travelling home now after a short break and it strikes me we have discussed the science and creationist aspects in some detail but there are philosophical aspects which Bill D can help us with. For those who care, what led me to it was wondering how Nagel's bat fit into
this. The question I suggest we reflect on is to what extent species exist in a formal sense and to what extent they are arbitrary human constructs.

Let me express it another way
Humans are fantastic pattern recognition devices but are prone to detecting patterns that don't really exist. To what extent are we doing this?

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Lighter
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 08:53 AM

> going into college level might well lose me, and so you have to again use the argument from authority.

Sorry, Pete, but your glib refusal to familiarize yourself with science and scientists on the basis that you are incapable of understanding it, does not reduce the rest of us to "arguing from authority."

"Argument from authority" means basing an argument on supposed expert opinion (including one's own) *while providing no good evidence to back it up.* Many of us have provided you with considerable evidence from world-recognized experts. You may choose to ignore it if you wish, just as you ignore some of our questions to you, but that doesn't make us gullible fools "arguing from authority."

A refusal to look at substantive evidence for evolution as presented even at the college level (in other words, in a form graspable even by nineteen- or twenty-year-olds) does, however, reduce the debater to "arguing from ignorance."

Much of this thread just begs for transactional analysis - another subject taught at the college level in easily understandable form.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 09:05 AM

perhaps it might help to define our terms, because they are getting tossed back and forth pretty freely. And over the course of history, folks have used the same terms to mean quite different things.

I'll start with a few basic terms and ideas:

natural history - the study of life, both past and present, along with the environments it is found in

evolution - changes observed/postulated in populations of organisms over the course of time

genetics - the study of self replicating biochemical compounds that are found in lifeforms that regulate how an organism both lives and produces new generations

just like history, evolution is based on observations of historic facts and there is no pre-determination of a final outcome. The history of England did not direct itself so that the present monarch is Elizabeth II, but rather the result of a number of historic events (that could have gone another way) is the historic past that resulted in today's situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:27 AM

here I is with no pretense of being a scientist asking steve a perfectly civil question and was answered with abuse, and that there is no preservation of favoured races because evolution is purposeless.
knowing how he promotes Darwin so much, I was somewhat surprised.........and so
   on the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
Charles Darwin   1859.
neither did I intend to convey a meaning of intention when I utilized the already tendered term "weeding out". I did not realize that this expression could only be used in terms on intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:34 AM

the above also applies to you troubadour.
seems I need to repeat myself yet again. creationists freely admit their presuppositions, and faith, though supported by scientific and logical argument. evolutionists however refuse to admit presuppositions and their faith.....probably offering the same evidence , largely, but interpreted naturalistically.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:49 AM

Ah, Pete. I just don't know mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: sciencegeek
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 10:56 AM

pete... how many times must you be told that Darwin's book on the Origin of species is not a holy tome to be revered ... it was the distillation of decades of observations and study by the author to put forward a hypothesis.

That hypothesis has been studied over the following years and refined... We've learned more and have a better idea of how things work. that's it... increased knowledge about the natural world.

your bible, on the other hand, isn't even the only version out there... yet you want others to blindly accept it as some kind of truth about the natural world... in spite of all the evidence that it is not correct. that's the sticking point, pete. your vanity want to believe that you have the answers neatly spelled out, while the rest of us understand that there will always be more questions out there and we probably won't ever have all the answers, but that doesn't keep us from looking...

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:03 AM

bill   "..in a sh0rt time scale" illustrates what I say. you call it evolution, but it is observational science in line with just about any biblical creationist position.......not the same thing as goo to you via the zoo evolution story, though confusing the two is a useful evolutionist tactic , intentional or not.
mrrzy, I appreciate that diagrams teach what is the perceived connections that link everything together, but does it demonstrate that it actually does. I think that what you ascribe to common ancestry ,I ascribe to common design. identical and similar, is to be expected. if God had not done it that way, I would assume there would be biological breakdown, but I confess to tentative thoughts on this.
lighter- argument from authority, does apply to you, because you have not presented evidence for the grand theory of evolution, only the short scale stuff which is far short of the evolution you adhere to.
......and of course I can direct you to renowned experts as well, but then I would be......arguing from authority !.

Subject: RE: BS: Special thread on Evolution & religion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Oct 14 - 11:26 AM

"...and of course I can direct you to renowned experts as well,..."

"Renonwned" among a deranged cult of religious nutters, probably!