...Do you even believe in Evolution in the first palce?

[BlueLioness]

I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.

So I'm feeling at odds.

I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?

If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nice to meet you!

I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?

I do not believe in evolution.

If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?

You could post in Creation & Evolution, which is a subforum of Physical & Life Sciences.

 

[BlueLioness]

Nice to meet you!


I do not believe in evolution.

You could post in Creation & Evolution, which is a subforum of Physical & Life Sciences.

Ok, thanks for your help.

 

[CabVet]

I do not believe in evolution.

Neither do I. I accept evolution as a scientific theory based on evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither do I. I accept evolution as a scientific theory based on evidence.

With respect to Darwin's Preservation of Favoured Races, or in spite of it?

 

[CabVet]

With respect to Darwin's Preservation of Favoured Races, or in spite of it?

A single book won't cut it for me, I tend to question things and have to look at the evidence, so I would say the book makes no difference. If it wasn't Darwin, natural selection was going to come out through Wallace at about the same time anyways.

 

[AV1611VET]

A single book won't cut it for me, I tend to question things and have to look at the evidence, so I would say the book makes no difference. If it wasn't Darwin, natural selection was going to come out through Wallace at about the same time anyways.

Shall I take that as "in spite of"?

 

[HitchSlap]

With respect to Darwin's Preservation of Favoured Races, or in spite of it?

With respect.

 

[HitchSlap]

I accept the ToE unequivocally, as it best explains biodistribution and biodiversity.

 

[CabVet]

Shall I take that as "in spite of"?

I am not really sure, as the book is a critical part of it, but it is not all (Darwin didn't know anything about genetics). So I think in this case your "in spite of" versus "with respect to" is a false dichotomy.

 

[AV1611VET]

I accept the ToE unequivocally, as it best explains biodistribution and biodiversity.

Yup.

Just ignore all the missing links in between, add time as necessary, and you can have any habitable planet biodistributed & biodiverse in no tim... er ... in time.

It's easy to believe in evolution:

1. Start with a habitable planet -- nevermind how it got here.
2. Start with life already in progress -- nevermind how it started.
3. Skip all missing links between nodes -- assume they were there at one time.
4. Add time as necessary -- never assume there wasn't enough.
5. Assume the environment was conducive to growth.

And voila! evolution on paper!

 

[CabVet]

It's easy to believe in evolution

While it is easy, it is neither necessary nor correct to believe in it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not really sure, as the book is a critical part of it, but it is not all (Darwin didn't know anything about genetics). So I think in this case your "in spite of" versus "with respect to" is a false dichotomy.

Nature either operates as Darwin specified, or she doesn't.

Which is it?

 

[CabVet]

1. Start with a habitable planet -- nevermind how it got here.
2. Start with life already in progress -- nevermind how it started.
3. Skip all missing links between nodes -- assume they were there at one time.
4. Add time as necessary -- never assume there wasn't enough.
5. Assume the environment was conducive to growth.

That would be your caricature of evolution. Gravity doesn't explain how animals evolve either, and it is not wrong because of that, so there is nothing wrong about evolution not explaining how life started. We have abiogenesis for that.

P.S.: No need to worry about missing links or deep time with genetic evidence (a.k.a. DNA daisy chaining). As for your point #5 (and #1) it is quite simple, if the environment wasn't conductive (or the planet wasn't inhabitable) we simply wouldn't be here.

 

[CabVet]

Nature either operates as Darwin specified, or she doesn't.

Which is it?

Another false dichotomy, but it is funny how the only ones that elevate Darwin to deity status are religious people trying to debate evolution. Every biologist knows that Darwin was wrong about many things, in many of his papers, and that evolution how Darwin proposed was not complete, but he was right about natural selection. Last I checked, there was such a thing as "partially correct".

Let's put it this way, if someone that never studied evolution was given the Origin of Species (and only that) as reading material for a test on evolutionary biology today, they would get a C at the most.

 

[AV1611VET]

That would be your caricature of evolution. Gravity doesn't explain how animals evolve either, and it is not wrong because of that, so there is nothing wrong about evolution not explaining how life started. We have abiogenesis for that.

P.S.: No need to worry about missing links or deep time with genetic evidence (a.k.a. DNA daisy chaining). As for your point #5 (and #1) it is quite simple, if the environment wasn't conductive (or the planet wasn't inhabitable) we simply wouldn't be here.

So I take it it's your caricature of evolution as well?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yup.

Just ignore all the missing links in between, add time as necessary, and you can have any habitable planet biodistributed & biodiverse in no tim... er ... in time.

It's easy to believe in evolution:

1. Start with a habitable planet -- nevermind how it got here.
2. Start with life already in progress -- nevermind how it started.
3. Skip all missing links between nodes -- assume they were there at one time.
4. Add time as necessary -- never assume there wasn't enough.
5. Assume the environment was conducive to growth.

And voila! evolution on paper!

Err...

Read much?

 

[Heissonear]

I mean, all over this forum there is the recurrent theme of evolution, and I know a couple of people who don't believe in evolution to begin with.

So I'm feeling at odds.

I mean, are there any non-evolutionists on this forum or are you all like-minded in the evolutionist thing?

If I say there is someone who is Creationist, does that belong over in another board or something?

BlueLioness,

I found the same on this Christian forum, elite evolutionist that dominate threads with Naturalism. Rather than being open minded they have sharpened their debate and bullying skills.

But the forum allows Christians and non-Christians on this specific forum. And God is ever so near.

 

[CabVet]

BlueLioness,

I found the same on this Christian forum, elite evolutionist that dominate threads will Naturalism. Rather than being open minded they have sharpened their debate and bullying skills.

But the forum allows Christians and non-Christians on this specific forum. And God is ever so near.

You can easily avoid the annoying presence of non-Christians by posting on these forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/f143/

http://www.christianforums.com/f425/

http://www.christianforums.com/f426/

You've been told that many times, yet you are still here, I wonder why.

 

[Heissonear]

We one is raised and schooled in evolution and natural sciences they eventually learn the strengths and weaknesses of Naturalism. No?