Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science

[paul becke]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

 

[Dizredux]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

And I repeat, if you believe the current Theory of Evolution is pseudoscience then I have a bridge in good shape to sell you...half price...today and today only.

Dizredux

 

[Papias]

Paul wrote:

Darwinism is a Pseudo-science

Paul, are you aware that the Vatican and recent Popes have come out again and again in support of evolution? Evolution is acceptable for Catholics accoring to Papal encyclicals Vatican statments, Papal statements, and more. Please do read what our Holy Father has written about evolution. He has written extensively about it, supports it, and doesn't see it as causing any problems for Christian faith

Here is a large paper overseen by the Pope on this:

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

From it:

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Your icons says you are a Catholic. Do you disagree with the Popes here?

In Christ -


Papias

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Split Rock]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

Scientists determine what is science by what they use on a daily basis... and they (biologists in particular) use the theory of evolution on a daily basis. Therefore, evolution is science. Unless you mean something else by "Darwinism."

 

[florida2]

Paul wrote:




Paul, are you aware that the Vatican and recent Popes have come out again and again in support of evolution? Evolution is acceptable for Catholics accoring to Papal encyclicals Vatican statments, Papal statements, and more. Please do read what our Holy Father has written about evolution. He has written extensively about it, supports it, and doesn't see it as causing any problems for Christian faith

Here is a large paper overseen by the Pope on this:

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution

From it:



Your icons says you are a Catholic. Do you disagree with the Popes here?

In Christ -


Papias

Don't worry - Paul rarely, if ever, responds in the threads he posts. It tends to be a single short post with a link to some blog or website which apparently holds conclusive proof that evolution is all a lie. (The fact that he has had to make multiple threads over time speak volumes about the veracity of his claims).

He doesn't engage in debate - I don't even know if he bothers to read any replies.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

If you are this willing to lie about science, imagine what you are willing to do with the Bible.

 

[Kunjax]

Why do creationists insist on calling evolution "Darwinism"? It makes as much sense as calling Special Relativity"Einsteinism".

 

[bhsmte]

Why do creationists insist on calling evolution "Darwinism"? It makes as much sense as calling Special Relativity"Einsteinism".

They need to identify the enemy, the one who is evil and in this case, Darwin is the lucky guy.

 

[Simmeh]

Why do creationists insist on calling evolution "Darwinism"? It makes as much sense as calling Special Relativity"Einsteinism".

My guess is that because religions tend to be about the words and deeds of a supposedly spiritually inspired/divine person, they then need to project that paradigm onto whatever it is they are arguing against as well. Some creationists call the ToE a religion, so it would make sense that they also need to come up with some sort of prophet/messiah figure as well.

 

[Kunjax]

My guess is that because religions tend to be about the words and deeds of a supposedly spiritually inspired/divine person, they then need to project that paradigm onto whatever it is they are arguing against as well. Some creationists call the ToE a religion, so it would make sense that they also need to come up with some sort of prophet/messiah figure as well.

Ah, so they use Darwin as a type of strawman. I guess that have trouble attacking evolution any other way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

The main claims from the document, and why they are false.

1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis

Laughable. Have creationists never heard of population genetics?

https://www.uic.edu/classes/bms/bms655/lesson13.html

2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis

As discussed in many threads, genetic markers serve as empirical evidence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7840464/

3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection Are Both Grossly Inadequate as ‘creative engines’

Empty assertion with no evidence to back it up. Also, the author fails to find a single mutation separating man and other species that could not be achieved through random mutation and natural selection.

4. Information is not reducible to a material basis

Physicists across the globe disagree.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
Physical information - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Aureus]

Here it is , all neatly laid out:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
​

Document starts out with a terrible quote mine. An article that Jerry Coyne wrote lambasting Evolutionary Psychology gets quote mined to try and pretend it reflects his views on Evolution. Hilarious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wonder how many actually took the time to read any of the material the OP provided? Curious.

 

[bhsmte]

I wonder how many actually took the time to read any of the material the OP provided? Curious.

And this comes from the person who claims to have no problem with the TOE.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And this comes from the person who claims to have no problem with the TOE.

What does my position have to do with it? I don't have the incessant need to defend ToE. I don't get real worked up about the theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory either.

 

[bhsmte]

What does my position have to do with it? I don't have the incessant need to defend ToE. I don't get real worked up about the theory of Relativity or the Big Bang Theory either.

Just stating what you have said; you have no problem with the TOE.

 

[Delphiki]

What do you mean by "Darwinism"? Do you mean Darwin's understanding of evolution? Do you you mean the Theory of Evolution as it is today? Or do you mean something else?

Creationists needs to stop using words invented by other creationists so normal people can understand what they are trying to say.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you mean by "Darwinism"? Do you mean Darwin's understanding of evolution? Do you you mean the Theory of Evolution as it is today? Or do you mean something else?

Creationists needs to stop using words invented by other creationists so normal people can understand what they are trying to say.

The paper itself, also uses the term; "evolution".

 

[Loudmouth]

I wonder how many actually took the time to read any of the material the OP provided? Curious.

What parts of the material do you think warrants discussion?