Evolution - A serious question.

[The-Joker]

Pardon me if I don't believe you. I'm sure you do have some "scientific criticisms," but I'm willing to bet you're trying to justify a Christian viewpoint. You are Christian, yes? Because if you weren't trying to justify a viewpoint that you felt was religiously important to defend, I'd think you would have been more willing to listen to everyone in this thread who's been telling you that your "scientific criticisms" don't make a lick of sense.

This,

would rep if could rep

 

[PearlWatson]

Um... why? You talk as though there's some monolithic "atheist agenda," and that's just about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Buddhists are atheists, but they're quite different from disillusioned Christian atheists. I can't imagine why an atheist would "need evolution to be true." The only reason evolution even became an issue in the general public was that the religious right believed -- wrongly -- that it somehow discredited their religious beliefs, when in reality it threatended nothing essential to their faith.

They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.

 

[The-Joker]

It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.

God believers don't need evolution to be false (God can do anything), atheists need evolution to be true. One evolutionist even said, "Darwinism is the greatest engine of atheism devised by man."

Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.

We've mentioned several relevant persons and their ideas... Darwin, Dawkins, the expert I quoted Futuyama, among others... from what I can tell you've essentially been pulling things out of your ***... hell you even tried to justify your grammar mistake with "I've heard it said that way before".

 

[The-Joker]

They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.

Social Darwinism and Darwinism are 2 different concepts based in 2 separate pools of ideas... the only thing they have in common is the word "Darwinism". And that's not even accurate... Evolution became a "issue in the general public" because Darwin was interpreted as saying "it can work without god", where before you couldn't possibly explain the intricacies of life without God.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I'm with Millsapa. I know there is a lot of substantiation for evolution, anatomically, genetically, etc. But even if something has a lot of substantiation for it, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's true. As we are both Christian, stories like Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark just make more sense.

I think all the animals/plants started existing at the same time. All aspects of science contradict that, but who cares about science? I prefer to believe in Noah and all the stories I was told as a child. Thanks for listening.

- Craig

 

[Scat]

I'm with Millsapa. I know there is a lot of substantiation for evolution, anatomically, genetically, etc. But even if something has a lot of substantiation for it, that doesn't mean we have to believe it's true. As we are both Christian, stories like Adam & Eve and Noah's Ark just make more sense.

I think all the animals/plants started existing at the same time. All aspects of science contradict that, but who cares about science? I prefer to believe in Noah and all the stories I was told as a child. Thanks for listening.

- Craig

I'll admit that your schtick was funny the first few posts but now you just come across as a unoriginal hack.

 

[One Brow]

Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.

There are biologist who support Intelligent Design and common descent, such as Michael Behe. There are non-biologists who are creationists (including a couple of geologists who still manage to do good work and get published). There is even a Moonie who got a PhD in Biology specifically to give himself credibility when attacking evolution (Jonathan Wells).

 

[PearlWatson]

But I think it can be helpful to think about developmental biology. You may remember in your high school biology textbooks that dramatically different species look very similar at certain stages of development. See the image below
Thats because during embryogenesis, you have these master regulatory genes called HOX genes that direct programs of development. Slight mutations in these genes have ripple effects that can cause dramatically different physical outcomes.
Anecdotal evidence of a sped up version of this comes from the Siberian Farm-Fox experiment.

Which you can read about briefly here

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/science/new-breed-of-fox-as-tame-as-a-pussycat.html

You say a mutation in these developmental genes result in a "dramatically different physical outcomes" yet in your example it talks about slight behavioral changes due to selective breeding. The Fox is still a fox...a nicer version of a fox but with no physical differences right?

 

[One Brow]

The Fox is still a fox...a nicer version of a fox but with no physical differences right?

Had you read the longer article, you would have found there were physical differences.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

It doesn't really matter whether Evolutionist missionaries/preachers tell me that my scientific criticisms don't make sense because they are the same scientific criticisms that other scientists have against Evolution and scientists who believe in evolution don't have the answers for them either.

Now you're just lying and not debating. You're just making stuff up to make people angry and using that as justification.

You've been told countless times that what you're trying to pass of as evolution and its mechanisms as a whole is completely incorrect, yet you still try to argue against your disillusioned cloud of evolution as if that's what evolution is.

And to clear something up. All mammals have had the female and male sex organs. That developed long before mammals ever existed.

 

[AtheistPreacher]

They need Darwinism to be true because it is the "disillusioned Christian atheists" creation myth...the only way they, as disbelievers in God, can explain why we are here is that it is an accident (random).

One of the prophets, Richard Dawkins, said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."

This is why there is panic among these disillusioned dudes whenever someone (like me) mentions the scientific criticisms or vast evidence against evolution.

The real reason evolution became an issue in the general public is because the theory of natural selection was being used to justify racialist theories/policies and eugenics. In fact, the "expert witnesses" in the Scopes trial, the ACLU inspired publicity stunt, were all champions of forced eugenics.

Wow. You really living in your own little fantasy world.

Richard Dawkins is a moron. I can tell you that every professor I've had here at UChicago has has spoken of him very dismissively. You can't just quote Dawkins as a straw man and then push him over. *I* could do that. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists any more than you speak for all Christians.

This is pointless. I'm going to try my best to ignore this thread from here on out.

 

[PearlWatson]

Who are these scientists who are advocating intelligent design? give me one article or one link written by an actual scientist, or even like a philosophy professor. Give us some context to show that you're not just making things up.

We've mentioned several relevant persons and their ideas... Darwin, Dawkins, the expert I quoted Futuyama, among others... from what I can tell you've essentially been pulling things out of your ***... hell you even tried to justify your grammar mistake with "I've heard it said that way before".

Ain't you ever wondered about the 5% of scientists you say doesn't believe in evolution? Hasn't you been the least bit curious about what they might have to say?
One of my favorite brilliant ID scientist dudes is named William Dembski who has this mathematical formula for detecting design in the universe, which is distinct from chance or accident. He has himself a blog called Uncommon Descent where you can watch a video with a bunch of other ID scientist dudes if you care to learn anything other than what you've been fed in gubment schools.

I amn't in need of grammar help. It ain't (ay not) like I doesn't know the proper use of contractions. I was being facetious in my use of don't. My response to your grammar help was facetious as well. Hasn't you ever watched the show Pysch? I was using this meme the main character uses, "I've heard it both ways."