PDA

View Full Version : Was Darwin Wrong?


katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 01:33 PM
NO!

National Geographic has just put out a new issue with the cover story stating singularly that anybody who ignores the massive amount of evidence supporting evolution is a bleeding fool.

check it out
http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/001020.html

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/index.html

and then post your thoughts and comments here, please.

c4ts
2nd November 2004, 01:38 PM
Unless you're baiting 1inC, I suggest you put this in the Science forum.

Upchurch
2nd November 2004, 01:40 PM
:roll: :roll: :roll:

Dr Adequate
2nd November 2004, 01:48 PM
Hooray and hurrah.

Someone should write them a thank-you letter.

cbish
2nd November 2004, 02:00 PM
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.:D :D

pgwenthold
2nd November 2004, 02:00 PM
Was Darwin wrong?


Originally posted by katlefiya
NO!



I wouldn't necessarily say that. I'm sure there are many aspects of modern evolutionary theory that deviate from Darwin's original hypotheses.

Of course, that doesn't dispute the point that evolutionary theory is as indistiputable as any scientific discipline, but there's no reason to assert that Darwin is the end all of evolution, no more than we would say that Newton is the ultimate source in mechanics.

c4ts
2nd November 2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by cbish
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.:D :D

I would give anything to open the "no" page in their faces. However I would probably be called "Satan" and then they'd start throwing rocks.

cbish
2nd November 2004, 02:07 PM
pgwenthold wrote:
I'm sure there are many aspects of modern evolutionary theory that deviate from Darwin's original hypotheses.

There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.

katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by c4ts
Unless you're baiting 1inC, I suggest you put this in the Science forum.

Technically this post would have fit in either this forum or the science forum, since it is the essential battle between science and religion.
I posted it here because a) I thought it would get a better response/more views and b) because I wanted to see if 1inChrist would respond.

katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by cbish
pgwenthold wrote:


There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.

I think you guys are kind of missing the point. We're not debating which aspects of Darwinism is the right one. We're debating which of evolution or creationism has more evidence to back it up than the other. The article published by National Geographic claims that Evolution has been proven (or backed up) time and time again, while Creationism has not. And frankly, I agree.

pgwenthold
2nd November 2004, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by cbish
pgwenthold wrote:


There are. One is that Darwin was still a tad bit teleoligical in that he thought only beneficial traits were passed on. If it wasn't beneficial to survival and reproduction, it would eventually lose out. Even if a traits benefit was not self evident, Darwin would say that somehow it had to be beneficial. This would be a very consistent thought for the time.

Today, the line of thinking is more along the lines that as long as a trait doesn't hinder your reproductive capacity, it will be passed on.

In short, Darwin thought traits had to be beneficial. Today, beneficial or neutral as long as it doesn't impede reproduction.

I can buy that, and it only helps my point. Going back to Darwin on evolution only creates a great opportunity for strawman, in that creationists think all they have to do is to show he was wrong. My comparison to Newton I think is most relevent. Evolution is to Darwin as mechanics is to Newton. They both have their place and are widely applicable, but there are many aspects in which they are insufficient and even fail.

Soapy Sam
2nd November 2004, 02:24 PM
Katleyfiya.

You won't get much of an argument on this here, except from one or two deliberate trolls. I think you are preaching to the choir .

pgwenthold
2nd November 2004, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by katlefiya
I think you guys are kind of missing the point. We're not debating which aspects of Darwinism is the right one. We're debating which of evolution or creationism has more evidence to back it up than the other.

The title of your thread is not "Is Evolution Wrong?" It specifically asks if _Darwin_ was wrong.

Now, I realize that you pulled this out of National Geographic, and so I blame them for the sensationalized headline, and the wrong answer to that question.

The question of which has more evidence (evolution or creation) is not much of a debate.

LostAngeles
2nd November 2004, 02:33 PM
Well, as many people said, he wasn't entirely right, but he did have the right idea. This is <strike>pretty much</strike>* true of all science. I mean, haven't they gone back and said, "OK, Einstein had the right general idea about relativity, it just doesn't quite work the way he thought."

*Mid-post Edit: All science works that way. Science has a built in error correcting mechanism. Duh, me.

Dymanic
2nd November 2004, 02:47 PM
You won't get much of an argument on this here, except from one or two deliberate trolls. I think you are preaching to the choir.

NG has put up a forum for public discussion. (http://seabed.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/forum.tmpl?issue_id=20041101&forum_index=1)

The site's text editor only handles about 30 characters per line, so I recommend composing in NotePad or something and pasting it in with no line breaks. And reopen a new browser rather than refreshing, or you'll double-post.

Pretty fun, even though only a few real wackos.

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 03:05 PM
[Some] theists, myself included, don't have a problem with 'evolution'. I do not doubt that life has the capability to change form.
Don't forget though that the issue is one of origin.

Darwin didn't prove that life evolved from non-life, via chemistry. And even if this could be proved, one still has to ask from whence the order of the universe (and the universe itself) originated.

Perhaps Darwin is a kick in the teeth for biblical literalists, but not for 'God' itself.

cbish
2nd November 2004, 03:16 PM
lifegazer wrote:
Don't forget though that the issue is one of origin

OK, this is called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are not necessarily the same thing. Rush Limbaugh failed to differentiate this to create one of his 'undeniable truths' in his first book.

Which is why: Perhaps Darwin is a kick in the teeth for biblical literalists, but not for 'God' itself.

I think the people at http://www.talkorigins.org/ would agree with this assesment.

RebeccaBradley
2nd November 2004, 03:39 PM
Cool links, Katlefiya, many thanks! And welcome to the forum! :)

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by cbish
lifegazer wrote:


OK, this is called Biogenesis. Biogenesis and evolution are not necessarily the same thing. Rush Limbaugh failed to differentiate this to create one of his 'undeniable truths' in his first book.

Which is why:

I think the people at http://www.talkorigins.org/ would agree with this assesment.
The point is that Darwin did NOTHING to negate the existence of God.
Same applies to 'biogenesis'.

So what's the point of this thread other than to get on the nerves of biblical literalists?

RebeccaBradley
2nd November 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
So what's the point of this thread other than to get on the nerves of biblical literalists?

Uh - to alert us to a potentially interesting and valuable article in an influential magazine with wide international distribution?

c4ts
2nd November 2004, 04:13 PM
And to unnerve Lifegazer.

katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 04:19 PM
I just kinda thought that you guys might be interested in the article.

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 04:21 PM
This has no philosophical (or theological) interest then.
Off to the science forum wid ya.

Marquis de Carabas
2nd November 2004, 04:24 PM
Still bitter about having your post moved, LG? :D

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Still bitter about having your post moved, LG? :D
As a matter of fact, I bleedin' well am.

Marquis de Carabas
2nd November 2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
As a matter of fact, I bleedin' well am.
Here, have a nice, refreshing cup of cute, furry bunny.
http://www.susantaustin.com/pix/bunnies.gif

OK, I'll be good now [/derail]

c4ts
2nd November 2004, 04:28 PM
The more I see those bunnies, the more I want to put them in a blender and drink the bloody sludge out of those cups.

RebeccaBradley
2nd November 2004, 04:28 PM
From the linked article
So one can imagine a creationist spying the magazine and excitedly grabbing it, assuming that a magazine as prestigious as National Georgraphic has now been forced to take creationism seriously.


:D According to cbish's post above, that line is fairly prophetic...

Posted by cbish
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.

Again, :D

Marquis de Carabas
2nd November 2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by c4ts
The more I see those bunnies, the more I want to put them in a blender and drink the bloody sludge out of those cups.
Sickening, aren't they? Too bad I don't own a blender.

RebeccaBradley
2nd November 2004, 04:35 PM
I understand bunny sludge goes very well with fava beans.

DarkMagician
2nd November 2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by cbish
Funny story

A co-worker of mine returned last week from a science teacher conference in San Jose. A booth was handing out these editions of National Geographic........A Creationist booth!!

Apparently, they had failed to actually open the magazine.:D :D Some days I wonder why I get up in the morning.

And then, I see this.

Piscivore
2nd November 2004, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
As a matter of fact, I bleedin' well am.

Anger, fear, agression; lead to the dark side, these feelings do...

katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
As a matter of fact, I bleedin' well am.

I thought your philosophy was all about trying to get humanity to unite.

I'm feeling a leetle bit alienated by you.

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by katlefiya
I thought your philosophy was all about trying to get humanity to unite.

I'm feeling a leetle bit alienated by you.
Then burn sucker. LOL

Just jokin'.

Only God exists - if you knew this, you would realise that only attitudes could be alienated from one another.

Kimpatsu
2nd November 2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
Only God exists - if you knew this, you would realise that only attitudes could be alienated from one another.
In other words, god is a solipsist.
Well, I always knew there'd be one...

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
In other words, god is a solipsist.
Well, I always knew there'd be one...
God has to be a solipsist by logical default since 'God' is omnipresent.
If God exists, then nothing else does.

= only One truly exists.

Z
2nd November 2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
God has to be a solipsist by logical default since 'God' is omnipresent.
If God exists, then nothing else does.

= only One truly exists[/i].

Prove it.

Oh, that's right - you can't.

Kimpatsu
2nd November 2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
God has to be a solipsist by logical default since 'God' is omnipresent.
If God exists, then nothing else does.

Non sequitur. Anyway, as Dr. Johnson demonstrated by kicking a rock, "I refute (solipsism) thus!"
As I kick back, I know I exist, which by your reasoning means that god doesn't. Unless you admit that I'm god.

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Prove it.

Oh, that's right - you can't.
Proof here is self-evident: 'God' cannot be omnipresent whilst "other things" are reported to have an independent existence of their own.

Therefore, if a God exists, God is a solipsist.

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Non sequitur. Anyway, as Dr. Johnson demonstrated by kicking a rock, "I refute (solipsism) thus!"

Dr. Johnson sensed himself kicking a sensed-rock and felt sensed-pain.
All sensations occur within.

= Dr. Johnson proved Jack.

As I kick back, I know I exist, which by your reasoning means that god doesn't. Unless you admit that I'm god.
I do admit that you are God.

Z
2nd November 2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
Proof here is self-evident: 'God' cannot be omnipresent whilst "other things" are reported to have an independent existence of their own.

Therefore, if a God exists, God is a solipsist.

Only IF you define 'God' as 'Omnipresent' and 'Indivisible'.

However, if God consist of constituent parts, then God can be omnipresent while other things can maintain an existence - not independent of, but as components of - God.

Once again, flawed reasoning.

Tell me, LG - can you make any statement at all without messing up the process of logical reasoning?

lifegazer
2nd November 2004, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Only IF you define 'God' as 'Omnipresent' and 'Indivisible'.

What sort of a bozo would define 'God' as finite (within the existence 'he' has reportedly created)?
If 'God' is a concept that refers to finite entities having limted powers to effect change, then I insist that the concept of 'God' mirrors ALL reported entities, since they are all finite and have the power to effect limited change.

... Hence, the philosophical/rational conceptualisation of 'God' must seek to distinguish between ALL perceived entities and Itself (God). As such, philosophy can only relate to a truly omnipresent God.

Z
2nd November 2004, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by lifegazer
What sort of a bozo would define 'God' as finite (within the existence 'he' has reportedly created)?
If 'God' is a concept that refers to finite entities having limted powers to effect change, then I insist that the concept of 'God' mirrors ALL reported entities, since they are all finite and have the power to effect limited change.

... Hence, the philosophical/rational conceptualisation of 'God' must seek to distinguish between ALL perceived entities and Itself (God). As such, philosophy can only relate to a truly omnipresent God.

Sez you - As it is, plenty of 'bozos' throughout history have defined God as finite. Even within the existence which he supposedly created.

Now - what if God is a finite entity which has unlimited power to effect change? What of your definitions then?

But - in order for you to deal with a philosophy of God, you must first, absolutely, define what a God is. Sadly, you make generalized assertions without first providing your definitions and/or rationalizations.

For my own part, I see God as separate from and including the entire universe. How? Because I see God as an unreal entity - that is, an entity comprised of neither space nor time, but which can encompass and occupy any and all of space/time as it desires. Being an unreal entity, it does not have to conform to any known laws of space-time, and can even exist in various paradoxical and contradictory states.

Of course, any and all philosophy of God is based merely on conjecture - since there is no means to demonstrate God or to prove God's existence, all we can do is ponder.

katlefiya
2nd November 2004, 07:57 PM
Lifegazer,
could you not admit that maybe other people's perceptions of the world are similar to your own, but using different words to describe it?
e.g. people call it existence, and existence includes everything, could that not simply be another term for God?

c4ts
2nd November 2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by RebeccaBradley
I understand bunny sludge goes very well with fava beans.

Unlike chianti.