Evolution Observed

[Truly Enlightened]

You don't think it's true?

My statement was that I didn't understand the relevance of anything AFTER the statement I quoted. With all respect, everything after that was simply inconsistent, unrelated, and with lots of sciency-sounding partial and half truths. Was there a clear point you were trying to make? Don

 

[Dan From Smithville]

and again
The paper is titled 'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology' it discusses, unsurprisingly, conflicts between Darwin and paleontology... so I am using it to highlight, guess what? conflicts between Darwin and paleontology

I am quite curious how you interpret the context of the paper as actually highlighting - harmony between Darwin and paleontology
can you expand on how you are reaching this interpretation?

You are doing the same thing that others who are promoting creationism have done. You are taking the "conflicts" out of context to mean that science is challenging the validity of the theory of evolution. That is not what the paper is about.

I am not interpreting it as harmony, I never have. But I can see, given your position, that is the next thing you have to say in this discussion in an effort to maintain your relevancy. I am interpreting it as a scientist that accepts the theory of evolution, writing about the details and highlighting where one line of evidence is not falling out as expected. Raup is not arguing that the fossil evidence is not in line with the theory, so the theory is therefore, falsified. That is what you have been trying to say from the start. You picked up the baton from creationist quote mining and have been running with it ever since.

Have really read the paper? I haven't posted a link on here yet, so I don't know what my success will be, but I can provide a link to a pdf copy of the paper if you need it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dawkins himself acknowledges the possibility that life was put here by alien intelligence, other atheists like Andre Linde - principle in modern inflationary theory, speculate that the universe was also a product of 'alien' ID of some kind. Are those theistic arguments?

Likewise non theists overwhelmingly support Darwinian evolution with God having no role. Neither belief should bias the objective science should they?




Sure, nature is the executor of God's laws as Galileo said. But theist or atheist, the laws of nature very precisely predetermined the development of many natural phenomena. I don't make an exception for life. i.e. the implications of life developing according to predetermined plans, are as easy to fit into an atheist model as the rest of nature. It would need some sort of infinite probability machine to write all teh laws of course, but that's not a leap of faith not already taken.

point being again, as with Hoyle, we should not allow our personal feelings about the apparent implications of a theory, to bias the objectivity of it. If predetermination or ID implies God made us the way he wanted to, I have no bias against this- do you?



Like most Darwinists, I think you are a perfectly intelligent, honest, rational person, capable of critical thought, who is ultimately interested in knowing the truth, not merely supporting a preconceived belief.
i.e. I do not and have not attacked your intellect in any way

If you can state the same, then we can wipe the slate clean and stick to substance, deal?




Okay- so if it were found on Mars? How about if SETI detected a complex mathematical sequence coming from the Andromeda Galaxy? would that be human? or a theological argument?

I can't preclude the possibility that some alien species exists and that they created life on earth, but it doesn't explain the origin of life overall, but only pushes it back. What I can say is that we have no evidence for alien action or the action of a deity involved anywhere in the process. Such evidence is not found in science, I don't have it and you don't have it. No one has evidence of a guide, a creator or aliens. My belief is in God, but if I took your tactic to try and replace science with my beliefs, science would be useless to us.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I didn't think you'd run out of substantive arguments quite this quickly

"Intelligent Design involves only Theological speculation."

Again what Hoyle said about the primeval atom. You only betray an ideological bias by doing this. Dawkins concedes the great intellectual fulfillment Darwinism gives him as an atheist. That's nice for him, but it doesn't change the science, or lack thereof, either way

If Darwinism is scientifically sound it should be able to stand on it's own substantive arguments, not personal attacks

If you unearth the Rosetta stone and conclude it was intelligently designed, is this a theological speculation?

Intelligent design is a theological argument wrapped in scientific clothing. What else is there to say about it. A theological argument could be wrapped in anything and still it would be a theological argument.

When you say Darwinism, what exactly do you mean? The theory of evolution has not been falsified. There is no valid scientific argument against it. The argument exists only among certain related groups of theists that have numerous strictures on their beliefs that even their belief system as a whole does not require.

The Rosetta stone was unearthed and no theological origin for it has been proposed. Are you doing that now. You can. The problem, like ID, is that you can't support that claim with evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

? If you can explain sub atomic physics/ quantum mechanics using only Newtonian physics... then they'll give you a prize! much easier to get one just being a liberal politician though..

Is this your attempt to have your politics enter the fray? Can we leave that out please? Especially since the prizes received and the one you are suggesting are not the same.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Intelligent design is a theological argument wrapped in scientific clothing. What else is there to say about it.

^ you illustrate my point exactly, Hoyle wrote off the Big Bang as a theological argument, called it 'religious pseudoscience' and hence had nothing else to say about it till his dying day, no matter how compelling the evidence became.

When you say Darwinism, what exactly do you mean?

Darwin's theory of evolution, 'Darwinism' is quicker

The theory of evolution has not been falsified. There is no valid scientific argument against it. The argument exists only among certain related groups of theists that have numerous strictures on their beliefs that even their belief system as a whole does not require.

As above, being skeptical of steady state does not require you to believe in God, neither does being skeptical of Darwinism, you are just betraying your own scientific bias based on whether or not you personally like- what you subjectively see as the implications

The Rosetta stone was unearthed and no theological origin for it has been proposed. Are you doing that now. You can. The problem, like ID, is that you can't support that claim with evidence.

^ again- exactly my point, identifying the fingerprints of ID is not equal to a theological argument.

But if ID in life has implications for God, I have no particular bias against that implication, are you conceding that you do?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

^ you illustrate my point exactly, Hoyle wrote off the Big Bang as a theological argument, called it 'religious pseudoscience' and hence had nothing else to say about it till his dying day, no matter how compelling the evidence became.

I'm sorry, I thought your point was that the people that quote mine Raul and other scientists had a pretty good idea and you were going to run with it.

Darwin's theory of evolution, 'Darwinism' is quicker

So is the ToE.

As above, being skeptical of steady state does not require you to believe in God, neither does being skeptical of Darwinism, you are just betraying your own scientific bias based on whether or not you personally like- what you subjectively see as the implications

No I'm not. I'm betraying your disguise.

The implications of what Raul was talking about is evolution at a different rate. Not, "there is no evolution". What I like has nothing to do with it.

^ again- exactly my point, identifying the fingerprints of ID is not equal to a theological argument.

ID is a theological position. Just because they don't name the god, doesn't mean they are not talking about one.

But if ID in life has implications for God, I have no particular bias against that implication, are you conceding that you do?

As a belief system, it superfluous, since Christianity and Judaism already exist. As science, it is pseudoscience.