Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- -sputnik-0
discipler, do you get paid to lurk on NT and evangelically defend religious topics when they come up?
just seems a little odd.
- discipler0
My problem with Dawkins is that he oversteps his bounds. He's a zoologist, not a biochemist and certainly not a philosopher. He is just on some religious mission to convince the world that there is no God and rather, that Natural Selection is god. He completely ignores the evidence and lack of evidence which (IMO) demolishes his cherished position.
- KuzII0
wow dickpler - that sounds like the entire staff at the discovery institute includeing Meyer et al!!
- discipler0
kuz, I refuse to accept (macro) evolution because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support it AND because the latest findings on the molecular level suggest it could not have happened.
Nothing religious about that.
- Mimio0
Discipler, there's no doubt that we understand where you're coming from at this point. The Earth and the entire universe are only 6,000 years old..blah blah blah...
- mrdobolina0
A: evolution couldnt have happened because of god and jesus and the bible.
B: but I don't believe in the bible.
A: Well I do, silly.
- cosmo0
discipler is back. YAY!!!
- mrdobolina0
I expect to see "The War on Darwin" on the cable news channels this time next year. Similar to "The War on Terror" that we see now.
- ********0
K0na you're missing the point! the male model issue, merely proposes that after the reduction of our environmental challenges evolution is currently being reversed. Really man, get with hte programme!
kelpie
(Jan 5 06, 07:48)Thats a very good point kelpie. Did you know they even let disabled people mate these days? We are all doomed.
- KuzII0
actually that is not scientific fact that you just said, dickpler, a small group of pseudo-scientists with deeply held religious beliefs are pushing really hard to get such views accepted. the truth is, the overwhelming number of mainstream scientific journals, insititutions college campuses etc... new scientist, scientific american etc... and the wider scientific commuunity, wholeheartedly reject ID. You chose to cling on to it cos of your religious beliefs. We all know it.
- ********0
Misconception: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
- -sputnik-0
just the fact that KuzII calls discipler "dickpler" was worth entering this thread.
- unfittoprint0
Immaculate Conception
greatest lie ever told by a woman?
- ********0
Misconception: Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better.
It is true that natural selection weeds out individuals that are unfit in a particular situation, but for evolution, “good enough” is good enough. No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.
Other taxa may have changed and diversified a great deal—but that doesn’t mean they got “better.” After all, climates change, rivers shift course, new competitors invade—and what was “better” a million years ago, may not be “better” today. What works “better” in one location might not work so well in another. Fitness is linked to environment, not to progress.
- discipler0
hah, kuz. Nice try. Wrong on all counts.
- discipler0
I love how these threads end up just being emotional shouting by those who don't like to hear about the glaring flaws in Darwinism.
"Don't bother me with the facts, you fundamentalist! I'm comfortable with my unaccountable world view!"
*shakes fist at silly Christian.
- ********0
Perfect!
Here's you guys:
- mrdobolina0
discipler, were you interested in origins before or after you were born-again?
- ********0
Even f*cking better you wankers:
Misconception: “Evolution and religion are incompatible.”
Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science, only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world.
The misconception that one always has to choose between science and religion is incorrect. Of course, some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science (e.g., the belief that the world and all life on it was created in six literal days); however, most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.
- mrdobolina0
the christian bible says that the earth is only a bit over 6,000 years old.
All scientists agree that the earth is older than that.
What gives?