• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Which Theory of Evolution do you Believe?

gnostic

The Lost One

Did Charles Darwin ever call evolution or natural selection - "Darwinism"?

Yes? No?

Darwin did say "evolution through natural selection", but not once did he call it "Darwinism".

He wrote a number of books, including his journal, which he took notes of what he observed during his travel in HMS Beagle. Apart from On the Origin of Species, he wrote also The Descent of Man, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, and Selection in Relation to Sex. He wrote about plant life and he wrote correspondents and essays, but not once he mentioned "Darwinism".

I don't care what this link say. That Darwin never named it Darwinism, then your argument has been refuted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zosimus

Active Member
Did Charles Darwin ever call evolution or natural selection - "Darwinism"?

Yes? No?

Darwin did say "evolution through natural selection", but not once did he call it "Darwinism".

He wrote a number of books, including his journal, which he took notes of what he observed during his travel in HMS Beagle. Apart from On the Origin of Species, he wrote also The Descent of Man, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, and Selection in Relation to Sex. He wrote about plant life and he wrote correspondents and essays, but not once he mentioned "Darwinism".

I don't care what this link say. That Darwin never named it Darwinism, then your argument has been refuted.
Did Sir Isaac Newton ever call himself a scientist? No?
Well, then, I guess he wasn't a scientist because he never used that word.
That's about as valid as the argument you made.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gnostic

The Lost One
Did Sir Isaac Newton ever call himself a scientist? No?
Well, then, I guess he wasn't a scientist because he never used that word.
That's about as valid as the argument you made.
:rolleyes:

You are not paying attention, Zosimus.

Darwin did give a name to his theory; it was just not Darwinism. He called the mechanism of evolution - "Natural Selection."

Biologists all over the world, used the name Natural Selection.

And as I have mentioned many times before, Natural Selection is only just one of 5 mechanisms of evolution; the rest were found in the 20th century.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zosimus

Active Member
:rolleyes:

You are not paying attention, Zosimus.

Darwin did give a name to his theory; it was just not Darwinism. He called the mechanism of evolution - "Natural Selection"

Biologists all over the world, used the name Natural Selection.

And as I have mentioned many times before, Natural Selection is only just one of 5 mechanisms of evolution; the rest were found in the 20th century.
Sir Isaac Newton also gave a name to his theory. He called it the mathematical principles of natural philosophy. What's your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
The flaws of deductive reasoning is more of problem than with inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is far more problematic and have weaker argument than inductive reasoning, because it (deductive) is less involve in reality, requiring no evidences.

Deductive reasoning is only most useful in understanding social convention, human emotion or behaviour, cultural.

And your ignorance continue to astonish me. :facepalm:

Where does science say knowledge needs to be "immutable"?

If science is immutable, then why would we need Einstein's General Relativity or Planck's Quantum Physics. If physics was immutable, then we would be stuck with 17th century Newton's law on motion and gravity.

You do realise that Special Relativity and General Relativity do have something to do with gravity, but on a much larger astronomical level, don't you? You do realise that Quantum Mechanics do involve gravity at subatomic (or quantum) level?

If science was immutable, our computers would be stuck with 1960's architecture and design. The would be no PCs, no laptops, no tablets or no smartphones. Technology would be at standstill, if science was immutable. If science was immutable, there would be no progress.

Science allows for changes. Changes in our knowledge of the natural world and man-made world. Science can replace obsolete theory with new one, modify or correct existing theory.

Reading your replies, I am very embarrassed by your absurd ignorance with science.

Why do insist in embarrassing yourself on things that you clearly don't understand?

And this evolution thread, not a Big Bang thread. Your ignorance on both subjects have been duly noted by everyone here.

So, what is your stance on the Law of Conservation. Is it a law that is always in effect or no?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Yes, of course, God could be responsible for affecting or directing life to evolve in certain direction.

But you are forgetting that biology is still a BRANCH OF science, and evolution (as well as all mechanisms in evolution, including Natural Selection) is a FIELD IN biology.

And as scientific discipline, biology required that any statement (eg in theory or hypothesis) made, needs to be "falsifiable" and "testable". Essentially, what this mean is that the statement needs to be empirically verified (hence, it would need "evidences") before it can be accepted to be true.

Trying to assert God into the picture in biology - more specifically evolution - WOULD require that there be evidences for God.

Well, there are no direct evidences for existence of God, which make YOUR ASSERTION or CLAIM of God "directing" evolution - "speculative", "unfalsifiable" and "untestable" - and let's not forget - "wishful thinking" - and would require creationists such as yourself, to use all sorts of logical fallacies to twist God into science.

How many times have I stressed that for any statement to be scientifically verified and validated, it needs evidence, Evidence, EVIDENCE???!!!

You cannot - like every other creationists that I have come across, here and elsewhere - seem to grasp the concept of evidence.

Any statement, no matter how many logics you may apply to the statement, cannot be objectively true, unless there are testable evidences to back up the statement.

Take for instance, the theoretical theory on the multiverse model (actually it is "models", because there are numbers of different scientists advocating their own brands of multiverse) can be very logical - with all the mathematical equations (proofs) being belt out...and yet, not a single model of multiverse is testable in reality.

Multiverse is logically feasible, but not empirically feasible, which makes every single models "not true".

But the thing is, not only is your assertion about god's intervention not empirically possible, it is also not logically possible.

I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Creationists have pointed to places in the evolutionary thought where there are assumptions, not evidence.

The Christian God is testable and falsifiable. The Christian God states in the Bible He withdraws from the masses and makes Himself known (during this era) to individuals. Have you done individual testing or no?
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Do you accept that oxygen, and therefore water, cannot exist before the stars?
Do you accept that the sun is a second generation star, and therefore the earth, like the whole solar system, is much younger than other stars and galaxies?
Do you accept that we and trees have a common ancestor? Both in gradualism and punctuated equilibrium.
Do you accept that fundamental interactions are ultimately and inherently random?
Do you accept that spacetime, according to relativity, is immutable and eternal?

If not, what do you accept of modern science?

Ciao

- viole

I accept that you are misrepresenting parts of modern science. How was spacetime immutable prior to the expansion of the singularity, when no light was emitted to escape it?

But that's an aside--I accept modern science is accurate regarding the age of the universe but not the age of the Earth, and very detailed and accurate in biology but not in assuming common descent and macro-evolution.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
"Accept" does not mean "I believe every facet is true."

There is only one relevant facet. All known life is related and originates from a common ancestor. That is why both proponents of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium have in common. So, attacking gradualism by showing the alternative of punctuated equilibrium is not taking you anywhere. If punctuated equilibrium were true, you would still have common origin and the same exact problems.

I mean, do you really think there are scientists out there who believe life originated and developed independently on this planet more than once? Who would believe that if she has never been exposed to an ancient book written thousands years ago by people without a clue about biology?

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I accept that you are misrepresenting parts of modern science. How was spacetime immutable prior to the expansion of the singularity, when no light was emitted to escape it?

But that's an aside--I accept modern science is accurate regarding the age of the universe but not the age of the Earth, and very detailed and accurate in biology but not in assuming common descent and macro-evolution.

And how old do you think the earth is?

Ciao

- viole
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
There is only one relevant facet. All known life is related and originates from a common ancestor. That is why both proponents of gradualism and punctuated equilibrium have in common. So, attacking gradualism by showing the alternative of punctuated equilibrium is not taking you anywhere. If punctuated equilibrium were true, you would still have common origin and the same exact problems.

I mean, do you really think there are scientists out there who believe life originated and developed independently on this planet more than once? Who would believe that if she has never been exposed to an ancient book written thousands years ago by people without a clue about biology?

Ciao

- viole

I'm trying to respond to you reasonably, but you sometime tack on extra ideas that aren't relevant you your posts. Two examples:

1. All known life is related and originates from a common ancestor (you are unaware that common ancestry remains controversial, in terms of which was the ancestor or ancestor(s))?

2. The Bible writers didn't have a clue about biology (on the contrary, the Bible writers display so many scientific accuracies that I feel compelled to point out that a superior intelligence wrote the Bible).

Also, I do not know how old the earth is, but I have what I feel are good, scientific reasons to doubt that it is billions of years old. I further have good, scientific reasons to understand that it is reasonable that different parts of the universe are different ages.
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
Bible writers display so many scientific accuracies that I feel compelled to point out that a superior intelligence wrote the Bible

Bible science:

Bats are birds
God created light somehow before the stars which we now know are the source of light
There once was a solid "firmament" that the Bible says formed a solid "roof" over the world
The moon generates it's own light.
There was a global flood that covered the mountains

The Bible makes a great fantasy novel, as a science book though, it stinks.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I'm trying to respond to you reasonably, but you sometime tack on extra ideas that aren't relevant you your posts. Two examples:

1. All known life is related and originates from a common ancestor (you are unaware that common ancestry remains controversial, in terms of which was the ancestor or ancestor(s))?

It is not relevant what the common ancestor looked like. They all agree there is one.

2. The Bible writers didn't have a clue about biology (on the contrary, the Bible writers display so many scientific accuracies that I feel compelled to point out that a superior intelligence wrote the Bible).

Well, they talk about kinds. Which is a biological nonsense. They also say water existed before the stars, which is cosmological nonsense.

Also, I do not know how old the earth is, but I have what I feel are good, scientific reasons to doubt that it is billions of years old. I further have good, scientific reasons to understand that it is reasonable that different parts of the universe are different ages.

I hope you do not believe it is a few thousands years old ;)

Ciao

- viole
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Sir Isaac Newton also gave a name to his theory. He called it the mathematical principles of natural philosophy. What's your point?
This topic is about evolution, hence we can argue about what Darwin say (or write) or didn't say, so why bring up Newton, who was never a biologist?

Why do creationists always use non-scientific word, like Darwinism, when Charles Darwin himself never called his books on Natural Selection, as "Darwinism"?

Can a scientist name a theory, equation or constant with his or her name? Of course, he or she can.

Darwin didn't do such thing. Darwin always referred to it as Natural Selection, not Darwinism.

Einstein didn't name relativity as Einsteinism, but there are numbers of equations with name on it, but often with another scientist (or more) attached to them.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The Bible writers didn't have a clue about biology (on the contrary, the Bible writers display so many scientific accuracies that I feel compelled to point out that a superior intelligence wrote the Bible).
Reading JOB from 38 to 41, God supposed answer to Job, consist of nothing but verses filled with ignorant superstitions, one after another.

Those verses and chapters simpler showed that IF God really exists, then he has no more intelligence than a primitive and superstitious man, like author who wrote the book.

And the talking serpent and talking donkey have no more credibilities than that shown in Harry Potter books or that in Francis movies or Mr Ed tv shows.

People have been writing stories of talking animals for centuries (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite-Ugaritic), and many of them predated writings of Jews, Christians and Muslims. And they are all called myths and fables, including those found in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22, or in Qur'an 27 in which King Solomon has the ability to speak and understand the languages of birds and ants.

In the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat, the goddess Anat sent an eagle or hawk, named Yatpan, to rob the bow and arrows from Aqhat, son of Danel. Yatpan could talk, ended up killing Aqhat.

In the Old Babylonian Epic of Etana, we have nameless snake and eagle, with the abilities to talk to each other. They became companions, hunting and sharing food with others, until the eagle betrayed the snake, and (the eagle) ate her youngs. The snake took revenge upon the eagle, by crippling the bird's ability to fly, and left him in the pit to die. Etana, Sumerian King of Kish, was searching for a cure for he and his wife inability to have children. The eagle and King became friends when Etana nursed the eagle back to health. Etana had a vision that he flew on eagle's back to heavens, and meet the goddess who possessed the herb of birthing. The eagle had to fly twice to heaven, because the first time at flight, Etana got scared. The second flight must have been successful, but the tablet was fragmented, so meeting the goddess is lost. But assuming that Etana and the eagle did reach the goddess and fetch the plant of birthing as Etana's vision indicated came true for Etana.

The tale of Etana must be a lot older, because there is an artwork that depicts a hero on the back of eagle. And the name Etana does appear in Sumerian King List.

There are many Egyptian myths of animals with abilities to talk in language of humans.

The abilities of human being able to communicate in the languages of animals, or animals having the abilities to speak human language were commonplace in ancient and medieval myths and fables, and they are based on superstitions and wild imaginations of the authors. And the authors of Genesis, Numbers and Qur'an are no different in spinning tall tales.

In real life, parrots and cockatoo birds have the abilities to mimic the words spoken by humans, but they do not have the abilities to understand what they are mimicking. Donkeys, eagles and snakes definitely cannot even do what parrots and cockatoos can do (mimicking), let alone actually talk to humans.

The problems is that some worshippers still believe in such nonsenses, just showed that therir grasp in realities are on shaky ground.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Bible science:

Bats are birds
God created light somehow before the stars which we now know are the source of light
There once was a solid "firmament" that the Bible says formed a solid "roof" over the world
The moon generates it's own light.
There was a global flood that covered the mountains

The Bible makes a great fantasy novel, as a science book though, it stinks.

I appreciate what you've shared here, but please bear in mind:

*These objections have been answered in depth on apologetics websites

*You responded to my challenge of scientific accuracies by quoting scientific inaccuracies--the scientific accuracies of the Bible are so phenomenal, so advanced ahead of their time, that they are compelling, so don't be superficial in your response
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It is not relevant what the common ancestor looked like. They all agree there is one.



Well, they talk about kinds. Which is a biological nonsense. They also say water existed before the stars, which is cosmological nonsense.



I hope you do not believe it is a few thousands years old ;)

Ciao

- viole

I don't know why you are so "jumpy", that is, why you goal post shift so often, but since you (hijacked your own line of reasoning to) mention it, there are some great pages online showing that if water is forced through spacetime outside the universe, it creates time dilation and other affects in this universe.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Bible science:


God created light somehow before the stars which we now know are the source of light

Long before we discovered that photons pre-date stars, see Photon Epoch

There once was a solid "firmament" that the Bible says formed a solid "roof" over the world

Long before we knew about the fabric of space

There was a global flood that covered the mountains

.

Long before we knew the Earth contained enough water for such a flood


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/e...r-holds-three-times-much-water-earths-oceans/
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Reading JOB from 38 to 41, God supposed answer to Job, consist of nothing but verses filled with ignorant superstitions, one after another.

Those verses and chapters simpler showed that IF God really exists, then he has no more intelligence than a primitive and superstitious man, like author who wrote the book.

And the talking serpent and talking donkey have no more credibilities than that shown in Harry Potter books or that in Francis movies or Mr Ed tv shows.

People have been writing stories of talking animals for centuries (ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite-Ugaritic), and many of them predated writings of Jews, Christians and Muslims. And they are all called myths and fables, including those found in Genesis 3 and Numbers 22, or in Qur'an 27 in which King Solomon has the ability to speak and understand the languages of birds and ants.

In the Ugaritic Epic of Aqhat, the goddess Anat sent an eagle or hawk, named Yatpan, to rob the bow and arrows from Aqhat, son of Danel. Yatpan could talk, ended up killing Aqhat.

In the Old Babylonian Epic of Etana, we have nameless snake and eagle, with the abilities to talk to each other. They became companions, hunting and sharing food with others, until the eagle betrayed the snake, and (the eagle) ate her youngs. The snake took revenge upon the eagle, by crippling the bird's ability to fly, and left him in the pit to die. Etana, Sumerian King of Kish, was searching for a cure for he and his wife inability to have children. The eagle and King became friends when Etana nursed the eagle back to health. Etana had a vision that he flew on eagle's back to heavens, and meet the goddess who possessed the herb of birthing. The eagle had to fly twice to heaven, because the first time at flight, Etana got scared. The second flight must have been successful, but the tablet was fragmented, so meeting the goddess is lost. But assuming that Etana and the eagle did reach the goddess and fetch the plant of birthing as Etana's vision indicated came true for Etana.

The tale of Etana must be a lot older, because there is an artwork that depicts a hero on the back of eagle. And the name Etana does appear in Sumerian King List.

There are many Egyptian myths of animals with abilities to talk in language of humans.

The abilities of human being able to communicate in the languages of animals, or animals having the abilities to speak human language were commonplace in ancient and medieval myths and fables, and they are based on superstitions and wild imaginations of the authors. And the authors of Genesis, Numbers and Qur'an are no different in spinning tall tales.

In real life, parrots and cockatoo birds have the abilities to mimic the words spoken by humans, but they do not have the abilities to understand what they are mimicking. Donkeys, eagles and snakes definitely cannot even do what parrots and cockatoos can do (mimicking), let alone actually talk to humans.

The problems is that some worshippers still believe in such nonsenses, just showed that therir grasp in realities are on shaky ground.

You are taking a lot of time to show me what you feel is wrong in the Bible.

I'm rather stating that the scientific accuracies of the Bible are compelling enough to demand our attention as to their true authorship.

If I gave you hundreds of specific prophecies that you saw fulfilled after I gave them, you would have to draw some hard conclusions, likewise.

I'm not wanting to insult you, but I feel like I'm saying Citizen Kane is awesome, the critics' overwhelming choice for best film in history, and you're saying, "Nah, black-and-white films suck".

Additionally, since you seem here to be attacking Genesis, from my viewpoint as a careful student, I would note that you seem to be dismissing 66 books on the basis of some findings in one book. For a further example, there are scientific accuracies that are excellent in Ecclesiastes, but the authorship of Ecclesiastes is presumably removed immensely in time and station from Genesis.

I mean, consider the Qu'ran if you have merely an anti-Bible or anti-Christ bias. Do you think the Qu'ran is filled only with jihadist and terrorist imprecations? Do you think it contains any truth at all? Any wisdom?

Be consistent.

Further, in the case of the talking donkey, it is written the Lord made the donkey to talk. The Bible never claimed this was a norm in nature at all. I've always read the Balaam story as one of supernatural intervention. Have you read it differently?

If you have an anti-miracle bias, that's something entirely different.

Consider I draw a ten-inch circle on a sheet of paper, representing the sum total of knowledge that is possible.

Now, draw inside the circle a smaller circle representing my knowledge or your knowledge. Surely, your circle isn't the full ten inches of all knowledge.

Don't you think God, even a miracle God, could exist in the part of the circle outside your own, smaller circle?

I'm sorry, but "miracles don't happen because I've never seen one" is not a logical argument, it's an anecdotal argument.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Long before we discovered that photons pre-date stars, see Photon Epoch



Long before we knew about the fabric of space



Long before we knew the Earth contained enough water for such a flood


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/e...r-holds-three-times-much-water-earths-oceans/

And what they say would make further sense if telescopes discerned an edge or limit to this universe. It's like they are telling Columbus not to circumnavigate because "we know demons will get you on the far side of the ocean". Logic says, for example, there could be water, or diamonds, or nothing, or many things, outside the universe...
 
Top