What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Wildswanderer]

So you actually think that a dog doesn't have the right to vote because Darwin was wrong?

The ridiculousness of the Theory of Evolution just shot through the roof with your thinking.

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals. Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How do we know that?
But science, unlike religion, is not satisfied with assuming. Science tests, and its "worldview" is based on observed phenomena, not folklore.
Why? Because we're able to dominate and exploit them? Might makes right?
But this "dominion" is based only on convenient folklore.
We didn't enslave others for no reason, either.

Do you eat meat? Do you wear clothes?
Then you are enslaving and killing animals. It's inevitable. Even if you don't eat meat, all farming kills lots of little animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Duh, darwinism is the model.

You are the one that claimed "other models" and you were comparing them to Darwinism without presenting any examples of the "other" models. You are so lost you cannot even follow your own garbage.

Talk about 'duh'.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals. Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

That is so much garbage. We have pets like dogs, because they co-evolved with us.

 

[ratiocinator]

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals.

Massive, glaring non sequitur. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or what anybody has a right to do.

Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

Nonsense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making stuff up I never said, again.

I don't have to make anything up. You said it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You are the one that claimed "other models" and you were comparing them to Darwinism without presenting any examples of the "other" models. You are so lost you cannot even follow your own garbage.

Talk about 'duh'.

Darwin's theory is the model all the finds are plugged into. Put the same find into a creation model and it fits fine.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you eat meat? Do you wear clothes?
Then you are enslaving and killing animals. It's inevitable. Even if you don't eat meat, all farming kills lots of little animals.

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution? You gonna blame the Kennedy assassination on it next?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Massive, glaring non sequitur. Darwin's theory has nothing to do with what is right or wrong or what anybody has a right to do.



Nonsense.

You should try using logic sometimes...

 

[Wildswanderer]

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution? You gonna blame the Kennedy assassination on it next?

You obviously aren't following the thread. I understand .. it's too confusing for you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Darwin's theory is the model all the finds are plugged into. Put the same find into a creation model and it fits fine.

YOU said other models and the data plugged into them does not demonstrate evolution. Now you are hemming and hawing to avoid presenting these other models. Creation does not explain the fossil record. Creation does not explain speciation. Creation doesn't answer a myriad of questions. Sorry guy.

 

[ratiocinator]

Darwin's theory is the model all the finds are plugged into.

False. It is a model that was derived from the evidence and that all the subsequent evidence has been found to support.

Put the same find into a creation model and it fits fine.

Also false.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You obviously aren't following the thread. I understand .. it's too confusing for you.

So when you are cornered and your failure to support your claims is highlighted, you follow the traditional creationist playbook and of how to deal with persistence.

I am following your posts very well. I watch you flip and flop all over the place hoping that you will hit water, but never getting there.

 

[ratiocinator]

You should try using logic sometimes...

Okay, show your working. Where is this 'logic' of which you speak...?

How do you get from a scientific theory to a statement about morality?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should try using logic sometimes...

That is pretty funny advice coming from your position.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Simple logic.
A pig is a dog is a boy as the animal rightests say. That's what evolution makes us.

That isn't logic. That is just silly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An apes DNA isn't identical to human DNA, according to science.

Since you brought science into this, according to the methods of science, humans are a species of ape. Therefore, we have the same DNA as an ape. We do not have the exact sequences of the other species of apes, but very, very close.

Sorry, YOU are wrong once again.

 

[Valjean]

More like you can't explain why the scientific exist laws that result in the possibility of creating such a machine

Noöne, at present, can explain the whys of creation. Religion certainly can't, but only science is actively researching any relevant facts.

Such a kingdom has always been in existence. It's not new. We have long ruled over the animal kinds.

Noöne claims it's new.
The strong have always dominated the weak or powerless. That does not make it moral.
Didn't Jesus speak against it?

Who said anything about no rules?
One follows from the other. Science cannot explain why matter exists, except it matter seems to come from energy. God provides the energy.
And then the life energy, also from himself.

Science says matter comes from energy?
What does religion say about it?
Yes, religion attributes it to God, but offers no explanations of anything. Nor does it offer any evidence to support either the attribution or the god.

 

[night912]

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals. Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

How so?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What's to define. It's history that's there for all the see

Actually, it is not there for all to see. When you look at humans and our characteristics, we easily fall into the existing kingdom that includes all other animals.

I am not surprised you cannot define and defend your claim, but I thought that you might at least try. Not that your failure to do so is unexpected.