Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[SkepticThinker]

Haha. "-ist" is a common suffix for a person, e.g. scientist, polemicist, antagonist, creationist, polytheist. "-ist" does not perform the same function in words like twist, mist, gist, wist, wrist.

Yes, I'm aware. This doesn't answer my questions. Also, I'm not sure what's so funny.

Darwinists are religious as are the -ists of other religious views - dualists, buddhists, deists, etc.

This doesn't answer my questions either.

 

[Hamilton]

Yes, I'm aware. This doesn't answer my questions. Also, I'm not sure what's so funny.

This doesn't answer my questions either.

I think it is funny (not disrespectfully) that you would not know whether a darwinist is a person ("who") or a thing ("what).

But maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you were asking me for a specific example of a darwinist - in that case, Darwin ; and a definition of Darwinist - without looking at a dictionary (since if that is the type of definition you wanted, you could have gotten it more quickly than by asking me) I would say someone who fervently ("religiously") adheres to and/or promotes the beliefs of Darwin. Especially if that someone also believes Darwin is a special sort of genius (double entendre), the first to come up with and write about so-called "evolution" (not till 6th edition of The Origin of Species?) of "kinds" of animals, who has not lost relevance nor been superceded; and which someone in some cases reveres his writings, even without having read those, or having read them did so but uncritically (akin to Christians who revere the Bible but have read little of it), and who abhore and condemn (again, often without reading) literature that does criticize Darwin and that does critique his writing.

I believe this long winded answer is sufficient. Otherwise, be more specific as to which points you wish to be addressed. Then, if I can contribute something helpful, maybe I can give more a satisfactory answer; and if not, I'll let someone else answer.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think it is funny (not disrespectfully) that you would not know whether a darwinist is a person ("who") or a thing ("what).

Your claim was that there are Darwinists and that this Darwinism is a religion.

Anyone accepting the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution in the 21st Century is not a Darwinist, because the theory has evolved beyond Darwin's original presentation of his hypothesis, which is now a scientific theory. We've learned so much more since Darwin's time than he could have known.

I don't know of anyone who worships Darwin or views him as some sort of deity. Do you?

But maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you were asking me for a specific example of a darwinist - in that case, Darwin ; and a definition of Darwinist - without looking at a dictionary (since if that is the type of definition you wanted, you could have gotten it more quickly than by asking me)

I was asking for clarification of your claim so I asked you instead of looking up someone else's definitions.

I would say someone who fervently ("religiously") adheres to and/or promotes the beliefs of Darwin. Especially if that someone also believes Darwin is a special sort of genius (double entendre), the first to come up with and write about so-called "evolution" (not till 6th edition of The Origin of Species?) of "kinds" of animals, who has not lost relevance nor been superceded; and which someone in some cases reveres his writings, even without having read those, or having read them did so but uncritically (akin to Christians who revere the Bible but have read little of it), and who abhore and condemn (again, often without reading) literature that does criticize Darwin and that does critique his writing.

I believe this long winded answer is sufficient. Otherwise, be more specific as to which points you wish to be addressed. Then, if I can contribute something helpful, maybe I can give more a satisfactory answer; and if not, I'll let someone else answer.

I've never run into any such people. Certainly scientists don't do this. Where are these people?



By the way, there are no "kinds" in science as that is a vague religious term drawn from the Bible.

 

[Audie]

Haha. "-ist" is a common suffix for a person, e.g. scientist, polemicist, antagonist, creationist, polytheist. "-ist" does not perform the same function in words like twist, mist, gist, wist, wrist.
Darwinists are religious as are the -ists of other religious views - dualists, buddhists, deists, etc.

You'll have a hard time demonstrating
that "darwinist" is anything but religionist
garbage.

 

[Audie]

The "trait" is "the notion of being entitled to respect for ignorant beliefs."

And everyone has that trait,
according to you?

 

[Audie]

Your claim was that there are Darwinists and that this Darwinism is a religion.

Anyone accepting the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution in the 21st Century is not a Darwinist, because the theory has evolved beyond Darwin's original presentation of his hypothesis, which is now a scientific theory. We've learned so much more since Darwin's time than he could have known.

I don't know of anyone who worships Darwin or views him as some sort of deity. Do you?

I was asking for clarification of your claim so I asked you instead of looking up someone else's definitions.

I've never run into any such people. Certainly scientists don't do this. Where are these people?



By the way, there are no "kinds" in science as that is a vague religious term drawn from the Bible.

Where are such people?
They don't exist, except in the fervently
fevered minds of a certain quality of
" believer". Believer as in, they just
go about believing things.

Often they make things up and then
" believe" them. It's kind of weird.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where are such people?
They don't exist, except in the fervently
fevered minds of a certain quality of
" believer". Believer as in, they just
go about believing things.

Often they make things up and then
" believe" them. It's kind of weird.

Yeah, it is so weird that they actually are in the really reality. That is how weird it is. They are totally unnatural and not a part of the really real reality. In fact they are evidence that a part of existence is in effect supernatural. That is how weird they are.
And I do love weird. That is the most scientific claim you have ever made. The scientific theory of weirdness. Where have you published that one?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where are such people?
They don't exist, except in the fervently
fevered minds of a certain quality of
" believer". Believer as in, they just
go about believing things.

Often they make things up and then
" believe" them. It's kind of weird.

That's what I'm thinking.

 

[Hamilton]

By the way, there are no "kinds" in science as that is a vague religious term drawn from the Bible.

I was referring to the word as used by Darwin himself in The Origin of Species. It's a common word which I took in the common sense of the word, not as a translation of some Hebrew word. But I do note thst Darwin believed that life was breathed into the first kind or kinds of life. Part of his scientific outlook.

But anyway, I wasn't even talking about science! I was talking about Darwinism As Religion.

 

[Audie]

I was referring to the word as used by Darwin himself in The Origin of Species. It's a common word which I took in the common sense of the word, not as a translation of some Hebrew word. But I do note thst Darwin believed that life was breathed into the first kind or kinds of life. Part of his scientific outlook.

But anyway, I wasn't even talking about science! I was talking about Darwinism As Religion.

Maybe you should just talk to yourself
if all you care about is making things up.

As in conjuring things into existence by
thinking up definitions

 

[Hamilton]

Anyone accepting the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution in the 21st Century is not a Darwinist, because the theory has evolved beyond Darwin's original presentation of his hypothesis, which is now a scientific theory.

Wonderful! I was not addressing "Anyone accepting the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution in the 21st Century". If they are not darwinists fine. I was addressing darwinists according to the description I gave. Now you say there are no darwinists because (you claim) your different description precludes their existence. Okay. I don't know, but if you say so, okay. Although I see no dichotomy between accepting alleged evidence and crusading for darwinism (as I described). But by the definition I gave, darwinists are a real kind of people.

And so it continues, q.e.d.
"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." Amen.

 

[Hamilton]

I don't know of anyone who worships Darwin or views him as some sort of deity. Do you?

No. Why are being so silly!
Well, now that you mention it, I suppose there might be people who have deified Darwin. There have been people who more or less worshipped Socrates, Washington, Mao.

I think you forgot what I said in response to how darwinism is a religion. So, I am not too terribly moved by your straw man question.

However, there are indeed some who "worship" ("regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion") Darwin. Which is a common trait people have, to elevate the founder of their religion to a status of extravagant loyalty.

Such passion rightly belongs to religion.
"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was referring to the word as used by Darwin himself in The Origin of Species. It's a common word which I took in the common sense of the word, not as a translation of some Hebrew word. But I do note thst Darwin believed that life was breathed into the first kind or kinds of life. Part of his scientific outlook.

But anyway, I wasn't even talking about science! I was talking about Darwinism As Religion.

He used the terms "races" and "varieties."
"Kinds" is a term used by creationists that they've plucked from the Bible. There are no "kinds" in evolutionary science.
Darwin also didn't really use the term "evolution" very much either and instead used "descent with modification." So what? Again, this isn't a religion, nobody worships the man, or his original hypothesis, which as already noted as changed quite a bit over the last 160+ years. His personal beliefs matter not a whit.

You've failed to point out where the religion is here. And you've failed to say who worships Darwin as some deity or religious figure.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Wonderful! I was not addressing "Anyone accepting the scientific evidence for the theory of evolution in the 21st Century". If they are not darwinists fine. I was addressing darwinists according to the description I gave. Now you say there are no darwinists because (you claim) your different description precludes their existence. Okay. I don't know, but if you say so, okay. Although I see no dichotomy between accepting alleged evidence and crusading for darwinism (as I described). But by the definition I gave, darwinists are a real kind of people.

You say this, but you've failed to point out who and where these people are. You may have defined them into existence, but you can't seem to point any out anywhere.

Who is "crusading for Darwinism?"

And so it continues, q.e.d.
"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric." Amen.

What?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. Why are being so silly!

Uh because you're claiming that somebody somewhere fervently worships Darwin as some sort of deity and fervently promotes his beliefs. You claim it, but can't seem to point it out anywhere.

Well, now that you mention it, I suppose there might be people who have deified Darwin. There have been people who more or less worshipped Socrates, Washington, Mao.

Yeah, maybe. Or maybe not. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I think you forgot what I said in response to how darwinism is a religion. So, I am not too terribly moved by your straw man question.

You said a "Darwinist is someone who "fervently (religiously) adheres to and/or promotes the beliefs of Darwin."
Darwin's beliefs are irrelevant. Someone who accepts the theory of evolution isn't doing so on the basis if "Darwin's beliefs."

However, there are indeed some who "worship" ("regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion") Darwin. Which is a common trait people have, to elevate the founder of their religion to a status of extravagant loyalty.

Repeating this doesn't make it true.

Such passion rightly belongs to religion.
"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric."

Nonsense.

I do find it funny that religious-minded people think it's a some great point to attempt to drag science down to the level of religion though. I guess you don't realize the implications of that.

 

[danieldemol]

An attorney might be expected to examine a testimony in a number of ways. I think you would find a complete answer to your question in law books and on law websites so please go there for more details. But some of the ways would be to look at testimonies, both individually and in comparison with other testimonies and with other evidence, for relevance (irrelevance), objectivity (biases), coherence (or confusion), constency (or inconsistencies), harmony (or contradictions), the background and credibility of the witness (a professor of law, a family man, a drifter, a prostitute, a convicted forger, etc.), and so on.

I would add to the list whether the evidence is sufficiently reliable to support the nature of the claim in my view, although I recognise that this is really a sub-set of comparison to other evidence and objectivity.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

"This Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric."

“…lack of explicative power…”
Reminds me of Gerd Müller’s

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319189873_Why_an_extended_evolutionary_synthesis_is_necessary.

In it, he highlighted “The Explanatory Deficits of the M[odern] S[ynthesis].” He stated the MS
“never constituted an encompassing formal synthesis,” a refreshingly honest comment from a scientist, because it seems most natural methodologists here, with their entrenched positions, are unwilling to concede these deficits exist.
They say, “we have all the answers / explanation we need.”
Couldn’t be further from the truth!

The Evolutionary paradigm, especially in the realm of explaining Common Descent, is adding more & more convoluted elements to interpret the evidence.

So much for the principle of parsimony, aka Occam's Razor.