It is storming here at home too. The thunder woke me up in the wee hours. Really loud.
But it is just noise.
But it is just noise.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He stated that evolutionary biology developed its own methodology of historical narratives, where experiments are inappropriate and definitely acknowledged the similarity with the Geisteswissenschaften when he said “Indeed evolutionary biology, as a science, in many respects is more similar to the Geisteswissenschaften than to the exact sciences.". He proposed that evolutionary biology is “Autonomous” and as such is allowed to break free beyond the restrictions of the scientific method.
So you were wrong to deny the influence of evolution on eugenics.
I never said that eugenics or social darwinism is the work of Darwin, yet both are indeed influenced by his work.
He assumed quite a bit with not that much evidence.
Darwin’s idea of a spontaneously generated origin "LUCA" that emerged in a "warm little pond" then transformed to millions of a wide variety of organisms is the most ridiculous fairytale in the history of mankind.
Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur on 1859, same year when Darwin published “the Origin of Species”. Changing "spontaneous generation” to “abiogenesis" doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
So what? Now you are claiming that Europeans cannot exist because Americans came from Europe. You are using extremely poor logic again. Yes, Tiktaalik is a transitional form. Here is your error:1) The 375 mya Tiktaalik cannot be the missing transitional form between fish and the first four-legged creature ever walked on earth simply because evidence of 18 million years older four-legged creatures was found in Poland (395 mya).
Tiktaalik was claimed to have a mix of characteristics that appears to give it the ability of alternating between aquatic and terrestrial habitats and was considered as the missing link between fish and tetrapods.
If you want to claim that Darwin's work was abused, I guess so.
Once again, so what? are you going to keep saying that the Bible is not true because it was abused?
And no, abiogenesis is totally different from spontaneous generation.
how does demonstrating that modern bacteria (which are extremely complex due to their billions of years of evolution) do not appear spontaneously disprove abiogenesis? I would love to see the "logic" behind that.
So what? Now you are claiming that Europeans cannot exist because Americans came from Europe. You are using extremely poor logic again. Yes, Tiktaalik is a transitional form.
Here is your error:
You are assuming that transitional means ancestral. It does not. We are all but guaranteed not to be descended from Tiktaalik. But we are descended from a close relative to Tiktaalik.
Not at all. It was not abused. Evolution got adapted as a premise by other scientists of different/related fields then eugenics or social darwinism naturally emerged along the course of expected advancements or applications of the very evolutionary ideas, both were endorsed by Darwin himself. It was not an abuse of his work but rather it was an inevitable influence of his work.
Abuse or alterations of a religion is one thing and advanced applications of a theory as a natural progress built on the very theory at the core is a different thing.
After all, if the selection of the fittest were the course of nature towards prosperity, why would anyone want to alter that course? It would be legitimately justified by regimes that adapt this premise to embrace that course. (Such as the Nazi)
Not at all. in principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.
Darwin lived at a time when it was believed that bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation). For him, the emergence of first live “LUCA” that eventually evolved, was not a problem at all, it was a simple issue that can be seen every day, yet he was totally wrong.
You ignore the fact that the alleged first organism that was alive and capable of reproducing and transmitting its genetic material into a subsequent generation was necessarily extremely complex and came to existence without any evolutionary process to play any role to build such complexity.
The existence of such organism as the starting point is a must before any evolutionary/adaptation process would have any change to take place.
To be alive, capable of growing, reproducing and passing genetic material to successive generations, this first organism is necessarily extremely complex. Such complex organism can neither be spontaneously generated from nonliving matter nor any evolutionary process played any role to build such complexity. No evolution is possible before the emergence of such extremely complex organism.
The assumption that such organism can emerge from nonliving matter “abiogenesis” is totally unsubstantiated and not in any way less ridiculous than “spontaneous generation”.
At least those how believed in “spontaneous generation” may claim that their belief was supported by observations (obviously wrong interpretations of observations) but on what basis can anyone argue his position on the alleged “abiogenesis”? It’s nothing but a meaningless imagination.
What Europeans or Americans? How is that relevant to anything I’m saying?
My claim is “you cannot exist before your biological father” is that clear enough?
Per the alleged ToE, If a species “A" transform into species "B”, the process is gradual through numerous transitional forms. All these transitional forms (in-between) are necessarily ancestral to species “B”. In other words, they all have to exist at some point in time before species “B”. You cannot exist before your father, can you?
An ancestor is the cause of the existence of a descendant; an alleged descendant cannot exist millions of years before its alleged ancestor. Do we really need to argue about this?
There was no scientific evidence for spontaneous generation.
Darwin’s idea of a spontaneously generated origin "LUCA" that emerged in a "warm little pond" then transformed to millions of a wide variety of organisms is the most ridiculous fairytale in the history of mankind.
Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur on 1859, same year when Darwin published “the Origin of Species”. Changing "spontaneous generation” to “abiogenesis" doesn’t make it any less ridiculous.
I only know of very little information about “spontaneous generation” that some people created the idea that maggots or mice could spontaneously appeared out of recently dead bodies.Not at all. in principle, both are about the false/unsubstantiated belief that live can emerge from nonliving matter.
Darwin lived at a time when it was believed that bacteria, insects or even mice, could arise spontaneously from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation). For him, the emergence of first live “LUCA” that eventually evolved, was not a problem at all, it was a simple issue that can be seen every day, yet he was totally wrong.
Just a reminder, you do not even knows what is and what is not evidence and you have refused to even try to learn. So of course as usual you are laughably wrong.And there's no scientific evidence for Evolution or gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest either.
There is just a narrative that is believed to explain the fossil record and other "evidence".
Just a reminder, you do not even knows what is and what is not evidence and you have refused to even try to learn. So of course as usual you are laughably wrong.
So no, Abiogenesis isn’t spontaneous generation.
That is incorrect because it is incomplete. But even by that definition there is endless evidence for evolution."Evidence" is fact that supports what you believe.
People don't see facts that contradict what they believe so there's no word for that except "anomaly". Few people see anomalies even back when they believed in spontaneous generation.
You could just try the Funk and Wagnalls instead of making a production of it. You might be surprised.
But since this is a science based discussion the proper definition to use is that of scientific evidence. You don't have any. The theory of evolution has plenty.
No, evidence is independent of what people believe."Evidence" is fact that supports what you believe.
People don't see facts that contradict what they believe so there's no word for that except "anomaly".
Standard dictionaries are not the best sources for science based debates. We need to go over A LOT of basics before we can get to the actual science.As long as you're getting out the Funk and Wagnalls you should look up "science" and "metaphysics" as well. I don't think either of these words mean what you think they do.
One of the most positive attributes of English is that you can say anything you wants. If you can think it you can put it into words. You seem to only want to deconstruct every sentence to mean what you want it to mean.
No, evidence is independent of what people believe.
Standard dictionaries are not the best sources for science based debates. We need to go over A LOT of basics before we can get to the actual science.
I already showed an article that cited experimental evidence!!! You had NOTHING to say.
You probably didn't even see it because we all see only what we believe. Just as Egyptologists are blind to wide swathes of evidence that show the pyramid builders used linear funiculars to build mnemonics and biologists are blind to vast experiment (including all experiment) that show change in species is caused by consciousness and is gradual, you can't see the evidence (experiment) that shows you see what you believe.