Why Is Darwinism So Dangerous? (5)

[justlookinla]

Those are your conclusions. You support them.

You seem to be taking exception with my conclusions that Darwinism teaches that all life is the result of only naturalistic processes.

Now, again, if you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

I know, and you know, you're not going to present that.

 

[justlookinla]

Naturalistic processes, that is what it says and that is what science looks at.

Anything else?

Nope, not what I asked. Once again.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope, not what I asked. Once again.

If you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

Evolution looks at naturalistic processes, like any scientific theory.

If you need other processes to be involved in a scientific theory, go ahead and add them for your own personal satisfaction.

Do you understand that science looks at naturalistic processes? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's first talk about the first part of the alleged evidence you posted, the photo of the various skulls A through N. If I remember correctly, you wanted to take it one step at a time, something I agreed to. Remember, you presented the photos as proof, as evidence, that humanity is the result totally, completely, solely of naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form from long long ago. That was my request and the photo you posted was response.

I am showing that humans are the result of the mechanisms described in the scientific theory of evolution. The rest of your philosophical distortions are yours to deal with. They are not a part of the scientific theory which I am supplying evidence for.

A isn't part of the process, why is it there.

A is a part of the process, just not in the way that you want it to be. Remember, I am providing evidence for the scientific theory, not your distortion of the scientific theory.

A is a modern chimp. Chimps evolved just like humans did. Chimps, along with other apes, provide a baseline of the basal features that an ancestral group for all apes (including humans) would have. A allows us to determine what the rest of the skulls are transitioning from. As Darwin put it,

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Origin of Species

The ape features in chimps represents gradations that were transmitted from earlier stages of descent as supported by the same features found in both gorillas and orangutans.

B through N represent a snapshot of the morphology found in hominids during those time periods. What the fossil record shows us is that hominids took on more and more modern human features through time, and we can also find time periods where there were hominids with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. This is exactly what the scientific theory of evolution predicts should have happened, and that is exactly what we find preserved in the fossil record.

What does that have to do with proof that humanity is the result of a totally, completely naturalistic process acting upon a single life form from long long ago.

Like you said, we are taking this bit by bit. If you can't even understand the evidence that links two species, how are you to understand the evidence that links all species?

Next, would you explain why you submitted the photo as proof when the skulls in the photo aren't even ancestral life forms. How is this establishing proof for creation of life from a single life from entirely, solely, completely, totally by naturalistic processes?

There is no way to determine if they are or aren't ancestral to modern humans. You can't even do that by digging up a modern human skull from a grave yard and looking at the morphology of the skull. The evidence is in the mixtures of characteristics which is what makes those skulls transitional.

 

[Loudmouth]

You seem to be taking exception with my conclusions that Darwinism teaches that all life is the result of only naturalistic processes.

I take exception to you distorting scientific theories and trying to make them say things that they don't say.

Now, again, if you can present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago, it would be very interesting for you to present it.

I know, and you know, you're not going to present that.

Why should I present evidence for your distortions?

 

[justlookinla]

I am showing that humans are the result of the mechanisms described in the scientific theory of evolution. The rest of your philosophical distortions are yours to deal with. They are not a part of the scientific theory which I am supplying evidence for.

You aren't showing that humans are the result of only naturalistic forces acting upon a single life form from long long ago. The photos you posted show similarities between humanoid fossils, but there's only conjecture (faith) that those humanoid fossils are the result of only naturalistic forces.

A is a part of the process, just not in the way that you want it to be. Remember, I am providing evidence for the scientific theory, not your distortion of the scientific theory.

A is a modern chimp. Chimps evolved just like humans did. Chimps, along with other apes, provide a baseline of the basal features that an ancestral group for all apes (including humans) would have. A allows us to determine what the rest of the skulls are transitioning from. As Darwin put it,

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Origin of Species

The ape features in chimps represents gradations that were transmitted from earlier stages of descent as supported by the same features found in both gorillas and orangutans.

That's no more than a commonality in the design. At best it's an example of micro evolution, not an example of humanity being the creation of only naturalistic processes acting upon a single life form.

B through N represent a snapshot of the morphology found in hominids during those time periods. What the fossil record shows us is that hominids took on more and more modern human features through time, and we can also find time periods where there were hominids with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. This is exactly what the scientific theory of evolution predicts should have happened, and that is exactly what we find preserved in the fossil record.

Did apes take on more and more apelike features through time? In other words, the fossil record shows nothing but apes becoming apes, albeit slightly different apes. That's an example of micro evolution. You're not presenting evidence that humanity is the result of entirely naturalistic creation.

Like you said, we are taking this bit by bit. If you can't even understand the evidence that links two species, how are you to understand the evidence that links all species?

Yes, and I appreciate you taking it bit by bit.

There is no way to determine if they are or aren't ancestral to modern humans. You can't even do that by digging up a modern human skull from a grave yard and looking at the morphology of the skull. The evidence is in the mixtures of characteristics which is what makes those skulls transitional.

If there is no way to determine if they are, or aren't, ancestral to modern humans, why are they suggestive as ancestral to modern humans? I realize you aren't claiming this, you don't believe they're ancestral. But wouldn't you agree that the implication of someone looking at the photo would assume that's a representation of today's humans slowly evolving from A to N over time? In my opinion, the photo of the humanoid skulls is misleading at best.

In any case, no evidence has been presented for the view that all of life is the result of only, totally, completely naturalistic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

I take exception to you distorting scientific theories and trying to make them say things that they don't say.

I haven't taken scientific theories and attempted to make them say things they didn't say.

Why should I present evidence for your distortions?

Why can't you simply answer the question. Again.....

Would you present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago? It would be very interesting for you to present it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I haven't taken scientific theories and attempted to make them say things they didn't say.



Why can't you simply answer the question. Again.....

Would you present evidence that Darwinism teaches there are other factors, other than naturalistic processes, which created humanity from a single life from from long long ago? It would be very interesting for you to present it.

Would you present evidence that evolution as taught in schools is inherently atheistic in that it makes claims about deities not existing? Because you have defiantly tried to make evolution say something it doesn't say.

 

[Davian]

Yes, atheism is a theological position on deities just as theism is a theological position on deities. Both positions yield a philosophical view of humanity and life. All atheists may not have the same philosophical view, as all theists do not have the same philosophical view, but in either case both have philosophical views shaped by their belief, or lack of belief, in deities. Some are more tolerant of differing views than others, some are fundie, some aren't.

If all atheists do not have the same philosophical view, then they nothing in common other than their lack of belief. You are the one chasing your own tail.

Answer me this: If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

 

[justlookinla]

Would you present evidence that evolution as taught in schools is inherently atheistic in that it makes claims about deities not existing? Because you have defiantly tried to make evolution say something it doesn't say.

I've presented it over and over. But, once again.

Darwinism is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint in that there is only one theory allowed, one which disallows anything and everything other than an entirely naturalistic creation. It demands that humanity is the creation of only, completely naturalistic processes. Humanity cannot be anything other than the result of "natural selection of small, inherited variations". That's it. It's a complete creationist doctrine in itself based entirely on one viewpoint.

It's inherently atheistic.

 

[theophilus777]

It would appear that people really don't understand what fundamentalism is.

"Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to orthodox theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology.[1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time."

Your source is wrong. The RCC was not about to abandon defining the fundamental principles of what Christianity has always been, to Protestants. Catholics were very much involved in the original concept of fundamentalism. But kudos for coming closer to the truth of it than most people uncover.

Last I checked, I have not required anyone to adhere to any orthodox theology or doctrine. I am certainly not requiring strict adherence to christian theology.

You absolutely do require strict adherence to orthodox doctrine. In fact right now scientists are ostracized and forced to give up prestigious positions they rightfully earned due to the Inquisition re: AGW. This too is religious in nature, so don't feel too bad, the phenomenon is by no means limited to you personally.

 

[bhsmte]

I've presented it over and over. But, once again.

Darwinism is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint in that there is only one theory allowed, one which disallows anything and everything other than an entirely naturalistic creation. It demands that humanity is the creation of only, completely naturalistic processes. Humanity cannot be anything other than the result of "natural selection of small, inherited variations". That's it. It's a complete creationist doctrine in itself based entirely on one viewpoint.

It's inherently atheistic.

Justlookinlaism

 

[bhsmte]

Your source is wrong. The RCC was not about to abandon defining the fundamental principles of what Christianity has always been, to Protestants. Catholics were very much involved in the original concept of fundamentalism. But kudos for coming closer to the truth of it than most people uncover.



You absolutely do require strict adherence to orthodox doctrine. In fact right now scientists are ostracized and forced to give up prestigious positions they rightfully earned due to the Inquisition re: AGW. This too is religious in nature, so don't feel too bad, the phenomenon is by no means limited to you personally.

Prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

If all atheists do not have the same philosophical view, then they nothing in common other than their lack of belief. You are the one chasing your own tail.

Answer me this: If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

Any philosophical viewpoint which rejects the existence of God will of course have differing conclusions among atheists, dependent upon other factors in the atheists life. The common thread will be philosophical outlooks and values based not on any theistic viewpoint, but on other influences from life.

Atheism shapes one's life philosophy just as theism shapes one's life philosophy. I'm surprised you're arguing that it doesn't.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I've presented it over and over. But, once again.

Darwinism is an inherently atheistic creationist viewpoint in that there is only one theory allowed, one which disallows anything and everything other than an entirely naturalistic creation. It demands that humanity is the creation of only, completely naturalistic processes. Humanity cannot be anything other than the result of "natural selection of small, inherited variations". That's it. It's a complete creationist doctrine in itself based entirely on one viewpoint.

It's inherently atheistic.

1. No scientific theory assumes itself to be incorrect, that would basically mean the theory was discrediting itself for no reason, it just isn't something any theory will have.

2. Show how evolution in particular is uniquely naturalistic compared to any other scientific theory, because you have to show why it is especially bad if you are trying to discredit it for this reason, and ignoring all other scientific theories.

3. It doesn't demand anything, the bible is far more demanding than any scientific theory. No scientific theory suggests bad things will happen to those who don't agree with it, no scientific theory demands people to accept it. Perhaps some proponents of it might be that way (most aren't) but they theory itself is not.

4. Seeing as evolution never claims to cover literally everything about life, and is only providing an explanation for the variety of life, there is lots of room for adding new possibilities to it, if you so desire.

 

[theophilus777]

To be clear, that paragraph refers to "Axiological, or constructive atheism", which could be seen as humanism.

"Atheism" in itself is only a theological position on deities.

True. Also true is that in the vacuum left behind (see: power vacuum) with no belief in God, as compared to Christianity, certain things will of necessity change. Words used to describe this might include philosophy, world view, or a host of others. Fortunately no one here is attempting to assert that atheism results in having no morals; I think we all tired of that one.

 

[theophilus777]

Don't worry about it.

Some need to convince themselves that atheism is a philosophy of life and also convince themselves that it is also on par with their beliefs, which are religion based.

It's all part of the defense mechanism of some and quite necessary to protect their own beliefs. It is both predictable and quite amusing to watch.

Actually, your hero here does all that for us quite well lately

 

[PsychoSarah]

True. Also true is that in the vacuum left behind (see: power vacuum) with no belief in God, as compared to Christianity, certain things will of necessity change. Words used to describe this might include philosophy, world view, or a host of others. Fortunately no one here is attempting to assert that atheism results in having no morals; I think we all tired of that one.

Oh, no, you have the wrong part of the forum for that annoying argument, that mostly appears in the Ethics and Philosophy areas. It occasionally is in this area, but not a whole lot.

 

[justlookinla]

1. No scientific theory assumes itself to be incorrect, that would basically mean the theory was discrediting itself for no reason, it just isn't something any theory will have.

Nobody assumes themselves to be incorrect. We all believe we're right.

2. Show how evolution in particular is uniquely naturalistic compared to any other scientific theory, because you have to show why it is especially bad if you are trying to discredit it for this reason, and ignoring all other scientific theories.

At this point in the conversation, I'm simply presenting the viewpoint that Darwinist creationism is based on the view that only by naturalistic impetuses was humanity created from a single life form from long long ago. No other viewpoint is allowed. That's it, nothing else.

That's an inherently atheistic viewpoint of creation.

3. It doesn't demand anything, the bible is far more demanding than any scientific theory. No scientific theory suggests bad things will happen to those who don't agree with it, no scientific theory demands people to accept it. Perhaps some proponents of it might be that way (most aren't) but they theory itself is not.

Folks were questioning my conclusions of Darwinism, not my conclusions about the bible. I'm offering an explanation.

4. Seeing as evolution never claims to cover literally everything about life, and is only providing an explanation for the variety of life, there is lots of room for adding new possibilities to it, if you so desire.

Darwinist creationism claims that all life is the result of only, totally, completely naturalistic processes. That's how you were created, that's how I was created. It's the only explanation allowed.

 

[theophilus777]

Next time want me to point it out?

You've responded with nothing which proves that a single life form became humanity solely, completely and totally by naturalistic mechanisms.

I've asked you point out where the photo of humanoid skulls, A to N, is evidence for such a creationist view. Now we find out that the A skull isn't part of the process and that none of them are ancestral. And this is your proof?

B-b-b-but - SCIENCE!



(But its not a religion)