Denial of evolution

Like spontaneous combustion? I have no problem with evolution theory, i just ask a lot of questions. I am still ALLOWED to do that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, I even wrote a wiki so you'd have the info at your fingertips.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[ENC]Evolution Denial[/ENC]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1) Did you write that entire article?

2) I think articles pertaining to "Evolution Denial" should be written by ... well, evolution deniers. You can reaffirm your pro-evolution position in the evolution article, no?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fraggle and river wind wrote most of it. I just added and organised their stuff in the wiki.

And it should rightly be called Responses to Evolution Denial.

 

So be it.

Not that it matters much, anyway - the SciForums encyclopedia is quintessentially satire. Anybody who goes on the SciForums encyclopedia to research evolution needs to have their priorities (and their head) examined.

 

hmm

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I've never considered any specific religious viewpoints when i discuss the subject. It's just little ol me doing what i have the right to do.

 

No one can read your mind, and no one has denied your "right" to ask questions,

but what you have posted on that topic is pretty much nothing but regurgitated fundie religious Creationist confusions, familiar from dozens of fundie Christians (and Muslims, at times) who wander unto forums to convert the misled unbelievers,

and asking questions is one thing, not paying attention to the answers is something else.

 

i dont like to be saddled with limitations, you can impose them on yourself but not to me.

So you have the answers? You have not demonstrated this, you should just be happy that you have convinced yourself.

 

I and many others here have answered your questions, which are not that difficult to answer - they are not unusual, or particularly troublesome, being identical to the standard Creationist reactions in a context of unfamiliarity with the basics of evolutionary theory. There are also many online resources, which you have been directed toward. What more can be done ?

 

You did not answer my questions because you cannot answer my questions. I really have no interest in discussing religion when i examine this subject. It is true that i am aware of supernatural interpretations, to me supernatural just means what it says or i should say extra natural to be more precise. It is just beyond what we know to be possible and not really a big deal. I cannot be limited by semantics and this will no longer suffice as an explanation.

I do have an interest in the human aspect of religion but i never made any claims as to what is absolute and what your assumptions are of me is not important because most likely you would be wrong, well you are wrong.

If you want to rehash the same BS 'go read a book', 'you dont understand' etc, then we will continue to be exactly where we are now. Which is to an extent fine but i know, as should you, that there is more.

As far as resources for information- i would love to see what you have because you never provide any.

Take a look at the first link (which i found last night):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html

If you examine some of my own posts you will find them to be somewhat similar to what the interviewee states. Specifically the bacterial aspect and importance in the process to the conclusion:

I have stated here that well really the process of change\progression does not matter to me as much as the method and i see something missing from the equation that to me is very obvious. Perhaps the links below will explain why and what that is>

These links i found and read last night also. They are basically what i had already known about this subject too.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_origins_001205.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99834.htm

http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-07/994690300.Ev.r.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/eyes_01

The bottom line is where the confusion exists. Of course that would be complexity and purpose.

 

Bye John, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

Edit: sorry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't think "the confusion" you are talking about exists.

I can see two actually existing areas of confusion around complexity and purpose:

Christian Creationist nonsense involving "irreducible complexity" and the like, used specifically in attempts to manipulate political opinion and expand the influence of religion over power - a propaganda generated confusion in the public discourse among the unlearned;

and arcane matters of definition in the philosophy of science, where the issue boils down to what meaning assigned to "purpose" is most useful and best avoids muddle.

There is no significant confusion - much to be learned, much unknown, some genuine debate, but not much confused AFAIK - about the role of complexity and purpose in evolutionary processes.

Nope. They don't. You're just going to have come out and say it, and be corrected in your assumptions again, such as your distinction of "process" from "method" that isn't going to make sense in this context.

 

It's all for fun, don't be so paranoid. Do you know how many different groups study the possibility of some form of Design? And just think at one time you would not have accepted Panspermia as acceptable theory.

What do i have to come out and say? Didnt you even look at my links. Why dont you just come out and say what this is all about with your suspicion, just ask me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If things are designed, why do they show signs of being imperfectly adapted from previous forms?

 

I would concur with that statement, wholeheartedly.
It's imperative that everyone conduct an independent investigation for the reason of objectivity. Yet considering both sides is essential to that goal so it is acceptable the Sci Forum offer and offical response.

 

Spidergoat, it always nice discussing this with you but i think i will just play my guitar tonight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not really sure what you mean in that post, can you expand on it?

 

John, I insist you stop trolling or your posts get cesspooled.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I failed to mention that from what I have read of the Denial spot it admits to no faults or detraction from the theory and honestly that is to be expected from the evolutionary appologist point of view but it also didn't seem to promise too much more than it was. It was appropriately vague in supporting the theory. And vague is an admission that there is a realm of uncertainty between theory and actual spot on observation. I believe it appropriately represents science's best guess.

 

Why don't you give some specifics? The article is work in progress. I'm sure posters will be happy to address your concerns.