Debate still rages over Darwin

Originally posted by noobfun
no quote mining in this lot, becasue the quote are reals, some are really old some are arguing badly for lamarkism but they are all real ..i only call dishonesty or logical fallacy when you use them

Hey! Not so quick...a dishonesty (the collective term, ya know) of creationist quotes without some shennanigans would be like pastrami without rye, Shakespeare without puns, Laurel without Hardy...

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

My dear Huxley

I meant to have added one other word. You speak of finding a flaw in my hypothesis,f2 & this shows you do not understand its nature. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws & holes as sound parts. — My question is whether the rag is worth anything? I think by careful treatment I can carry in it my fruit to market for a short distance over a gentle road; but I fear that you will give the poor rag such a devil of a shake that it will fall all to atoms; & a poor rag is better than nothing to carry one's fruit to market in— So do not be too ferocious.—f3

Ever yours | Most truly | C. Darwin

www.darwinproject.ac.uk...

My dear Dr. Gray

I must thank you for your two very valuable letters.f2 It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science. One chief object of this note is to say that I have not received the last part of your Silliman Papers:f3 Hooker has, & he says he will lend it me, if, as is very likely, you have not another copy. But it may come with the Watson correspondence.—f4 Your remarks on that head will be of real use to me, when I return to the subject, for a man must be blind not to see how cautious a reasoner you are.

Thank you much for your remarks on disjoined species:f5 I daresay I may be quite in error: I saw so much difficulty even theoretically & so much impossibility practically from my ignorance, that I had given up notion till I read your note to your Article. I had only just copied out a few striking cases out of Hooker's Him: Journalf6 & turned to Steudelf7 to see what the genera were. The notion was grounded on the belief that disjoined species had suffered much local extinction & therefore (conversely with the case of genera with many species having species with wide ranges.) I inferred that genera & Families with very few species (ie from Extinction) would be apt (not necessarily always) to have narrow ranges & disjoined ranges. You will not perceive, perhaps, what I am driving at & it is not worth enlarging on,—but I look at Extinction as common cause of small genera & disjoined ranges & therefore they ought, if they behaved properly & as nature does not lie to go together!—f8

I have not the least doubt that the proportions of British naturalised plants were due to simple chance; but I thought it was just worth mentioning to you: I had from your former Edition of Manual quite given up idea.—

It has been extremely kind of you telling me about the trees: now with your facts, & those from Britain, N. Zealand, & Tasmania, I shall have fair materials for judging:f9 I am writing this away from home,f10 but I think your fraction of 95132 is as large as in other cases, & is at least a striking coincidence.—

I thank you much for your remarks about my crossing notions, to which I may add, I was led by exactly the same idea as yours, viz that crossing must be one means of eliminating variation, & then I wished to make out how far in animals & vegetables this was possible.— Papilionaceous flowers are almost dead floorers to me, & I cannot experimentise as castration alone often produces sterility. I am surprised at what you say about Compositæ & Gramineæ. From what I have seen of latter they seemed to me (& I have watched Wheat owing to what L. Deslongchamps has said on their fertilisation in bud)f11 favourable for crossing; & from Cassini's observationsf12 & Kölreutersf13 on the adhesive pollen & C. C. Sprengels',f14 I had concluded that the Compositæ were eminently likely (I am aware of the pistil brushing out pollen.) to be crossed. If in some months time you can find time to tell me whether you have made any observations on the early fertilisation of plants in these two orders, I shd be very glad to hear, as it wd. save me from great blunder. In several published remarks on this subject in various genera it has seemed to me that the early fertilisation has been inferred from the early shedding of the pollen, which I think is clearly false inference. Another cause, I shd. think, of the belief of fertilisation in the bud, is the not-rare abnormal early maturity of the pistil, as described by Gærtner.—f15 I have hitherto failed in meeting with detailed account of regular & normal impregnation in the bud.— Podostemon & Subularia under water (& Leguminosæ) seem & are strongest cases against me, as far as I as yet know.

I am so sorry that you are so overwhelmed with work; it makes your very great kindness to me the more striking. Believe me, Your's gratefully | C. Darwin

It is really pretty to see how effectual insects are: a short time ago I found a female Holly 60 measured yards from any other Holly & I cut off some twigs & took by chance 20 stigmas, cut off their tops & put them under microscope: there was pollen on every one & in profusion on most! Weather cloudy & stormy & unfavourable, wind in wrong direction to have brought any.f16

www.darwinproject.ac.uk...

[edit on 20-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


hahah thank Mel, wasnt familiar with the quotes and didnt see anything that may be too out of place Darwin did acknowledge there were gaps in his knowledge and evidence (weve since closed those)

and well i figured he(aerm) had stopped making up his OWN quotes after the 'Richard Dawkin says he loves aliens and they deffinatley made us' quote or what ever it was he was suppoaed to have said but then a completley different quote was presented as evidence ... and then some story about pod casts when you pointed out the quote was totally different

well if he hasnt learnt anything about what evoution is suppoed to be in 7 years why should i expect him to learn new tricks or put away old ones

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by melatonin

 

hahah thank Mel, wasnt familiar with the quotes and didnt see anything that may be too out of place Darwin did acknowledge there were gaps in his knowledge and evidence (weve since closed those).

Heh, no worries. I see as a sort of 'sporting' challenge - creationist spouts a ream of quotes, the challenge is to find the catch. There could be more there, but one a day will do.

well if he hasnt learnt anything about what evoution is suppoed to be in 7 years why should i expect him to learn new tricks or put away old ones

I think astyanax has just nicely expressed the problem in a thread in O&C (devolution thread). It's a very simple well-supported concept that some people don't want to understand.



[edit on 20-2-2009 by melatonin]

I'm trying to wrap my head around WHY 'Darwin' still stirs controversy.

Is it simply an easy 'rallying cry' for "creationists"???

Because of name recognition, or what???

'Sagan'....'Hawking'....there are a multitude of names...."Dawkins"....but poor ole 'Darwin' gets all of the lumps.


A man who, for Chrissakes, simply noticed how species, once isolated, could....well 'speciate'....or better term, 'adapt' to survive.

Isolated from outside influences....life WILL adapt, in order to survive.

It is generational.

Humans have a certain lifespan, we know this. When we observe other creatures with shorter life-cycles, we can learn (well, most of us, but it seems, not ALL of us, can learn).

I mean....it were HUMANS who bred all of the ridiculous DOGS that exist today!!! Nature didn't do it!!!

Why, oh why does a Boxer, walking down the street recognize a Poodle???

First, of course....there is the smell...dogs have a keen sense of smell, of course.

What if....there was a glass wall between them? Would the Boxer, and the Poodle (both dogs) recognize that they were the same species??

What is the irrufutable proof that these two, very different variations of the same species, could recognize each other????

A head, four legs and a tail? No....could describe a cat, or a rhino, or an alligator, for that matter!!!

I'm still on topic, bear with me.....

So far, just talking about animals without the 'conscience' that we attribute to Humans.

Obviously, since we're SO smart, we can tell the difference.....because we were TRAINED by experience, to know the difference. BUT, that's the intellectual side of our brains....the emotional side, as well is programmed....that is the FEAR side. They come together, eventually....and THAT is experience.

You're out in the desert, and see TURTLE. Your reaction? The animal is harmless. WHY? Becase you have been told, or previously experienced....this animal.

You're still out in the desert, and see a Puma....fear sets in. BUT, now it's a housecat.....different reaction. NOW, it's a hyena!!!! Very dangerous....but now, a chihuahua.....see how pre-conceived notions can modify our reactions??

In the late 1800s, in the Western World, it was 'understood' that the earth was about 6,000 years old, that Adam and Eve began the entire Human Race, etc, etc, etc.

THIS is the sort of nonsense that needed to be overturned....it HAD happened, at some dim, dark past time in Human history....I believe.

religion had turned Humanity back into a serious 'dark age'......and science has been cracking open the door, ever since!!!





EDIT at the end.....I made the unfortunate choice of spelling a particular breed of dog that, in English, uses a term for feces as part of its name.

The ATS censor bots caught it.....my intent was NOT to use a disreputable, or disgusting term on ATS....was completely unintentional!!!!

I'm actualy amused, a little bit.....I'll replace the dog breed with one more accomodating.....




[edit on 2/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 2/20/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by TNT13
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

I'm not going by "Me knowing god", I'm going by the facts of how old we think the universe is and how old we think the earth is. The earth wasn't here from the beginning and by that estimation of time it won't be here at the finish of the universe either. I'm using science as my tool, not trying to say I "know" god, you should try it sometime.... FACTS!!!!!!!1

Sorry but I haven't heard any facts in this entire thread. If you are offering bonafide facts, then by all means show something more than posting your opinions. Tell us what you have to substantiate all this before grif or noob accuses you of not providing any like all those creationists they accuse.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Tell us what you have to substantiate all this before grif or noob accuses you of not providing any like all those creationists they accuse.

all which creationists? you, you mean?

appeal to pity, and that another logical fallacy ... shame were not playing fallacy bingo

Originally posted by spliff4020
If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

(not biased either way, just always wondered that)

WE didn't evolve from apes, nobody did; WE BRANCHED off in a different evolutionary path with COMMON EVOLUTIONARY ANCESTORS as apes, that is why we are so genetically similar but not the same species.

evolution isn't a linear progression to some specific form

much like how whales actually had ancestors on LAND and went into the water

please take an elective biology class or two, and make sure your teacher isn't a bible thumper

more tastey AD-hom goodness

Originally posted by noobfun

I am no Scientist and unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.- Aermacchi.

ad-hom, generalisation

Jeez noob it's bad enough everyone has to decipher your posts, correct you when you are wrong which is a full time job if your name is "Aermacchi" because not only do I have to correct you when you are wrong but I have to correct your spelling before I can even read your posts, THEN,, I have to re-direct on cross because of your fallacious allegations and mis-understanding of evolution and the protocols for logical fallacy.

Did you not read what I said Noob?

Here let me show you,

I am no Scientist and unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.- Aermacchi.

Then you said,

ad-hom, generalisation

Was I talking about atheists YOU see?

No, I was talking about me and my experience is NOT a generalization but your assertion is a an assumption and it is an incorrect assumption. Please get your posts cleaned up noob, they are too much exercise to read otherwise and I would like everyone to see just how truthful you actually come off when you say you rip my posts to shreds

deffine acting like a scientist?

You want me to explain to you what you have already accused me being a fallacy? Noob Please make sure you know what you are saying before you accuse me of a wrong, then ask me to tell you what that wrong was. It is a very bad habit you have and one I am going out of my way to tolerate.

or do you mean anyone who actually bothers to read anything scientific to refute your generalised nonsense arguments?

Is this your way of making the same accusation twice or do you actually believe a Scientist would be assuming things that are not correct and make the allegation as a statement of fact? If you are, my answer would be, you are making false accusations again and no I don't mean anyone of the examples you gave as what you assume again is MY idea of a person "acting" like a Scientist. It would seem however that you really weren't serious about that question anyway and were only trying to goad me into an emotional response.

Please Noob if you don't know what youi are talking about, do not waste my time, I have said your posts are too much exercise and not worth my time to respond to if all they are going to be about is your nit picking, hair splitting, line by line critique when your posts are so poorly composed themselves.

more of your generalistic anti-atheist hate rant

Again, Noobfun, please try to be more accurate in your portrayal of me and my sentiments for Atheist's. If this is some exhibition in your skills as a mind reader, I would have to say you are incorrect as I don't "Hate atheist's" they simply are not that important.

well ask them again but leave out the red herrings none equitors and general cut and paste nonsese to make your posts look well thought and well rounded instead of just literally gish-gallop .

" none equitors"? you mean? none equally? none equator?
"nonsese"? what is nonsese? and yes I do like my posts to look good as you say but calling it "gish gallop" makes for a cute byte for ad hom criticism and more ridicule but at least you could have given the gish and the galloped examples for me to refute. Since you did not, I really don't have to listen to this as anything more than what you have been doing to me since your first post wishing I took you off ignore. Please offer more than contradiction and presumptuous opinions to justify more of your criticism and ridicule noob. If this is all you are going to do is puff yourself up while you mock, ridicule and troll me, Ill just put you back on my ignore list.

Yes I know that you could care less but when you say it again, please don't make requests suggesting I take you off ignore so you can properly rip me to shreds because as you can see, I have gotten this far in our dialogue and ALL I have done is correct your false allegations. Then when I tell you about you doing this, you say THAT is an ad-hom! It is bad enough that trolling me is all you have done, and now you are suggesting I can't even comment about??

back on the ad-hom ....your dont spell check your tupid and im not listenting to you crap again?

I'm sorry, noobfun,, what are you trying to say ?

LOL I know what you mean. I may not be the best composer for these posts but my GOD man, have you ever tried to read some of that stuff noobfun posts? I took my microsoft narrator and had it read your posts, and then his.

till havnt learnt athing about what your arguing about.

"till havnt"? "learnt athing"?

It is very hard to know what I am supposed to be learning here noobfun, is this a foreign language?

7 years and still just copy pastes

I could just send you the links to reference if that upsets you. It's just that I have seen the same arguments and many of the same semantics and wordsmith being employed by Darwinist’s, so it really gets tired to have to type out an entire post just so you can ridicule it. It isn't like anything I say would make a difference. You have you bias and naturally of course, you are going to think your opinion is the consensus of the science community when,

it isn't.

funny maybe if you left all the none sequitor and red herrings out of the coopy paste machine we would have le to reply to and you could reply more often ..... and maybe with th e shorter replies you might actually ya know ...find room to put a fact or 2 in there.

none sequitor?? are you serious? you are telling ME I am doing this? HA HA HA Ok Noob, I guess either you don't know what that word mean, OR you don't have any room to talk as I don't have any more interest in listening to you

Oh and by the way, noob, if my posts are too long, then by all means DON'T trouble yourself, but if you do, please be more accurate and correct with your allegations and charges of dishonesty, I have only heard you mock me, and make accusations while in the same post you are giving advice about me using a fact or two?

When I used the, The Yale DNA Hybridization Scandal: and you said,, "so NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, red herring !!!"

If you are going to equivocate between evolution being science while I reject that idea, I have seen several times where it is assume my rejection of evolution is a rejection of science. I am given all kinds of examples of the wonders science has done for me that I take for granted everyday. So if you are going to attach my sentiments of evolution to mean all science, then be prepared to accept my understanding of science to mean evolution = all science.

if this nonsense is supposed to diprove it then Haggard getting caught with a rent ot disprove gods existance

"diprove? ot ?" what are you trying to tell me now?

wow national geo got all excited and ran a story before it had been checked by scientists properly, and even before it was checked many scientit were warning it looked suspicious

what is a scientit? one who is in the study of woman’s breasts?

If it was suspicious BEFORE (I assume scientist's) anyone "checked it" than why is it used by so many in the evolution community as a reference? This is getting to be quite the habit of this and many other Magazine's including public school text books. Then you tell me I don't understand evolution?

I tell you what, when they know how to teach it, (what ever the hell the method is this time), let me know, ok.

you think a few quotes from variou people over the last 150 year proves your case? sorry no dice, facts figures and testing not redherrings genrealiations and your usual copy paste

Forgive any mis-understanding noobfun , I have a hard time finding why you think my case is about something I never implied. When I gave the quote of Darwin, it was to substantiate the fact that even HE had doubts about his theory.

The fact that it is old or that it may be about Lamarckism is because Darwin died a long time ago so using any quotes by him it is assumed the reader has the common sense to expect they will be from a long time ago moreover, Lamarckism is eerily like the TOE, for a reason and again it is assumed one knows the subject matter before he should criticize me or assume he knows what he is talking about because,,


YOU DON'T


[edit on 21-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


I did offer bonified facts the Universe is between 13.61-13.65 billion years old (A little more specific since you weren't able to wrap your head around 14 billion). The Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, so these are my facts the Earth wasn't mysteriously here at the creation of the universe so by using simple PHYSICS and INTELLECT one would be brought to the plane and simple conclusion that it will not last till the end of the universe. Also the given estimate is that the Sun will last for another 4-5 billion years so at all costs the Earth has till then, if you'd like an equation to figure out star life please reference here Star Life Equation. All the other information I've provided is common knowledge and very simple to find, next time I suggest you do some homework before suggesting someones just pulling a rabbit out of a hat *cough* no religious pun intended.
southdakotapolitics.blogs.com...



[edit on 21-2-2009 by TNT13]

reply to post by Aermacchi


sadly the most compelling argument youve made all thread

and some of it is still wrong

unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.

you generalise on the atheists+scientists, then step in with an ad-hom on the pretend, its not a straight ad-hom more a global ad-hom to anyathiest with any scientific knowledge

are they pretending to be scientists? do you know they are not scientists? how many is many? some? a few? 50%? are they pretending to be scientists or do they understand science?

and ive already said I will worry about spll checking my stuff when you bother checking your facts as accurate which means no more just making them up

and really if your only measure of intelligence is running replies through a word procesor to score it then really you should have a a chat with Mel about some more useful measurement aids to intelligence


p.s.

deffine acting like a scientist?

You want me to explain to you what you have already accused me being a fallacy? Noob Please make sure you know what you are saying before you accuse me of a wrong, then ask me to tell you what that wrong was. It is a very bad habit you have and one I am going out of my way to tolerate.

already accused me bieng a fallacy? ...missing word?

and in no way an answer to the quetion you accuse people of acting like a scientist then i ask for a deffinaition of what that is exactly and you go off on a tangent

really even if your talking about you then tag on a generalised ad-hom statement about athiests ...it still means its a generalised ad-hom statement ..it doesnt suddenly vanish becasue you only want to pay attention to the first half of the statement

so the wrong here is in your ignoring most of the statement you made to one again try and play the i have a fancy spellchecker, i must be so very much smarter so i can just make things up and pretend they are true

keep up the comedy posts they me laugh



[edit on 21/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

sadly the most compelling argument youve made all thread

and some of it is still wrong

unlike many atheist's I see, I don't "pretend" to be.

Are they pretending to be scientists? do I know they are not scientists? how many is many? some? a few? 50%? are they pretending to be scientists or do they understand science?

This is exactly why I keep saying you like to split hairs while putting a foot in your mouth noobfun. The fact is you do NOT know what my experience with atheists has been but you make the claim you know me better than I know me.

You apparently don't know what an ad-hom is, you have only incited them since you began posting to me. I don't post to you in a thread, because I can't read your posts most of the time so I pass over them. I admitted using a spell checker not to imply it as I am so much smarter than everyone else I never make mistakes, but because I DO.

I would think you would appreciate that since I know first hand from having to make your posts readable, how much time I am saving you.

As bad as I am writing some of these posts I don't often write a paragraph where 60% of it is mis-spelled, dis-jointed sentences and phrases.

You asked me to define "acting like scientists" now you are asking me if they are "pretending to be scientists?

Do I know they are not scientist's? how many is many? ? etc,.
Gee Noobfun,, YOU TELL ME !

After all, YOU are the one making the accusation it is an "ad hom" So the burden of proof is on YOU to prove It!

Don't expect ME to get the stick to beat me with. You wanna call my claims an attack on you, then PROVE to us what the experience I have with them. You cannot, but make the claim regardless when the claim was not put as a statement of exact science NOR was it an ad-hom personal attack on YOU!

You're the one making ad-homs as to knowing I am generalizing, which, by the way, wasn't an attack on YOU.

The word "many" is the bone of contention with you and is WHY you should have been asking these questions before making accusations that I was attacking YOU personally. However knowing what an ad-hom REALLY means is something YOU have done to ME and continue to do.

Oh and by the way, MOST atheists I see in discussions like this, use ridicule and various other combative behavior to win there arguments. They do JUST what I have seen YOU, WEED, MEL, and Grifn doing while I was away from this thread and gossip about creationists using the word meaning as in "ALL" creationsists. Where was your self righteous indignation then buddy? That they (creationists) are ALL too ignorant to discuss evolution but NOT because they are unintelligent, but because they are Creationists!

Learn what these protocols are noob, learn what they mean.

"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person "

When was the last time you saw Richard Dawkins credentials? When?

How about Darwin?

If you say this is an absurd question to ask, I must tell you, it is NOT because YOU are setting the example by insisting I be held to similar criteria, I would only hope you can to then because I would insist you do or GET A CLUE!

You see you have FAITH in what they "they" have been telling you. You have faith that the information in the books you read about evolution are true and that the Scientists who also agree someone be it Dawkins or Miller, ARE in fact credible bonafide "scientists" because you never asked them these questions you are insisting I am not qualified to make about,, who again??

YOU DON'T KNOW DO YOU!

No you are asking me now because YOU think what I said is an ad-hom. NO it is not, it may be the logical fallacy for guilt by association, but guilty of what? acting like scientists!

OH I SHOULD BE SO INSULTED!

Ok all right, not ALL black people have rythm, ok all right so not ALL mexicans in Arizona speak spanish! Ok all right, japanese don't all walk around with camera's on their chests at tourist attractions, ok all right men don't ALWAYS cry the first time they see the movie "Brians Song", Ok all right Jews are ALWAYS willing to pick up the tab!

I suppose I could have said 7 out of 10 doctors agree or given a percentage but then you would have asked me to prove the credentials of percentage I gave by name and by diploma because that is how ridiculous you take things when you are so desperate to evoke an emotional response.

It is also a precedent you cannot match by example yourself and WHY I used MY experience and described it as "Many"!

Using the word "many" would indicate to "most" people that I do NOT mean "ALL". So rather than move right along in the argument to a something you can sink your teeth into, you have stepped into an argument splitting hairs on an issue anyone would agree is desperate, even for you.

Must I interview and ask for an ID of everyone of the atheist's I talk to now or is it JUST when it is a creationist that you assume to split hairs over these areas when you yourself have not done what you are asking of me.

I guess I could ask YOU the same question because the idea you are assaulting me with accusations for attacking YOU personally is one I must ask you for the proof since you cannot make that distinction save for this post which by the way is not about you, but more about me being forced to defend myself FROM you and your ad-hominem attacks using a false accusation when the word "many" assumes you know just what that implies and NOT what it doesn't and it doesn't imply "all". Do I or anyone else hold you to such an exact science when so much of evolution is simply pure speculation ?

"and ive already said I will worry about spll checking my stuff when you bother checking your facts as accurate which means no more just making them up"

making them up? I tell you what noob, how much would you like to bet me that I will debate macro evolution with you and if I win, YOU leave this forum never to grace us with your hair splitting line by line convoluted facts again. If I lose, Ill leave, never to point out your garbled mis-quoted, attempts to malign creationists again.

"and really if your only measure of intelligence is running replies through a word procesor to score it then really you should have a a chat with Mel about some more useful measurement aids to intelligence"

I'm sorry noob but I don't measure intelligence by comparing myself to how stupid Christians are or other people. That would be more indicative of a "Pride and egoism" you are not going to get out of most Christians who admit they are a very flawed people. Inspite of what many here are saying. We don't measure people that way or how You and your friends here seem to,

by the worldview they all share.













[edit on 22-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi,

....am just wondering WHAT in the HECK your last rant has to do in ANY WAY with the Topic at hand????


I made a HUGE mistake, in a recent post, and used the WRONG name!!!

A team of Watkins and Crick, THEY discovered the shape of the DNA molecule!!!

Not sure where 'Dawkins' came from....probably because it's close to 'Watkins'....

DNA....had already been known, but it's shape had been a mystery.....HOW did it replicate????

Well, knowing now, the 'double helix' shape, and that there are only four 'pieces' of the 'ladder', "AGTC" helps to understand that, indeed....the building blocks of all life CAN be discerend, at least if we talk about life on Earth, for now....

Sheesh!! If it hasn't been publilcaly announced yet, it likely will be soon....maping of the genome is practically finished!!!

It's already been done for other species.....Humans couldn't be very far behind!!!

DNA is already being used in forensics, and in Courts!!! It is REAL, not some 'creationist fantasy'!!!!!!

In the time of Darwin, of course....science had not YET given us the tools to see.

Took some time.....just as some scientists looked at the small, others lloked at the large!

In Darwin's era, the idea of airplanes would have been ridiculed!!!

Now, not only do we have routine airplane flights, but we have objects in space!!!

GPS, communication satellites....these are NOT fictional!!!

Religion, I'm sorry....is fictional.

Science is demonstrable, and reapeatable.....and true.

EDIT....one typo (probably are others, but I caught one...)

[edit on 2/21/0909 by weedwhacker]

EDIT again...saw two more typos, let them 'stet'....more fun, for everyone ot search!!!

[edit on 2/21/0909 by weedwhacker]

Why does the debate still rage?

Simple.

People need something to argue about.

Seriously people, does it really matter if he was right or not? Does it change what happens when you die? Will it improve your real life situation?

Try this:

Come up with your own idea on the meaning of life, how it started, and where it's going. Don't use anyone else's theories as the foundation. That way, you can sit comfortably knowing everyone who thinks they are right is WRONG. Come up with a philosophy that sits well with you, and kick back and enjoy life. Nobody knows, when it comes to spirituality, the more someone asserts they are right the more wrong they are.

reply to post by Gigatronix


Gigatronix....not sure how to acknowledge you, on a thread except to say I gave you a star!

Only other way is to stay on topic....so, your post was fantastic!!!!

Why 'Darwin' incites so much venom, after all these years, puzzles me.

Can't wait for the nastiness that will be coming at Newton, and Galileo and Hawking, once some other deniers of science want to continue to spout their nonsense....







[edit on 2/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Why 'Darwin' incites so much venom, after all these years, puzzles me.
[edit on 2/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

For the same reason the Sunni and Shiite are still fighting over who should have continued their prophets legacy: they think it's their duty to defend what they believe.As opposed to simply accepting that some people have different opinions and trying to find a compromise. Like say...oh I dunno...Living in peace and not getting into arguments about non life threatening theories?

Isn't it WEIRD that an Atheist like myself can get along with religious folks just fine, that religious folk and non-religious folk think I'm pretty okey-dokey? Imagine that, I can be friends with people that have opposing ideas!

What a concept.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Gigatronix]

reply to post by Gigatronix


Gigatronix....completely understand about your point....Sunni, Shia, Protestant, Catholic....kinda sorta the same, yeah??


Killing, because of religion...is one of the stupidest things that Humans do, or have done, in our entire History!!!!

ANIMALS kill for territory.....they PROTECT their territory, and they kill....Humans do the same darn thing!!!!

Humans have done this for centuries, they continue to do this.....Lions do it, Apes do it, and Humans do it!!!!

Time for Humans to grow up!!!!

Despite our veneer of Civilazation, beneath it.....we are still animals. We need to recognize this fact, if we are to improve.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Killing, because of religion...is one of the stupidest things that Humans do, or have done, in our entire History!!!!

True that Weed, sort of. Here's the thing. All that killing? Not religions fault. The fault lies in two places: At the feet of men wicked enough to twist words around to serve their greedy purpose, and at the feet of men foolish enough to kill for them. So the stupidest thing we've ever done, AND STILL CONTINUE TO DO, is follow the whims of greedy men who take a good idea and pervert it for a $$$$$.

Originally posted by Gigatronix

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Gigatronix

 

Why 'Darwin' incites so much venom, after all these years, puzzles me.
[edit on 2/22/0909 by weedwhacker]

For the same reason the Sunni and Shiite are still fighting over who should have continued their prophets legacy: they think it's their duty to defend what they believe.As opposed to simply accepting that some people have different opinions and trying to find a compromise. Like say...oh I dunno...Living in peace and not getting into arguments about non life threatening theories?

Isn't it WEIRD that an Atheist like myself can get along with religious folks just fine, that religious folk and non-religious folk think I'm pretty okey-dokey? Imagine that, I can be friends with people that have opposing ideas!

What a concept.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Gigatronix]

Yes, Gigatronix, it is true, you are very well spoken of by many in the Christian circles on these boards. I have even seen many in general discussions where Christians have brought your name up as somewhat of the exception to the rule of what we can expect from this group of non believers. I think I can speak for most Christians on these boards that you are admired and held in the highest esteem, more than you know.

If I had to put into words why this is so, I doubt I could do it without making some disparaging remarks in contrast with the other atheist's here but I think you are aware of the difference however.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Aermacchi]