• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Yeah, so, have you ever, like, read a book on ToE that wasn't written by a cdesign proponentsist? Just one?

Anyone who honestly read "Origin of Species" would never claim that Darwin did not follow evidence and use a scientific approach. No one.

Another somewhat obscure fact is that Alfred Russel Wallace was arriving at the same theory completely independently of Darwin. They both followed the evidence and came to the same conclusion, completely on their own.

The audacity to then claim that "Oh, it's all a religious belief" is born of ignorance of how the theory really came about. Or at least I hope that it is based on ignorance. The other option is that lifepsyop is purposefully being dishonest.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I just know I'm going to kick myself for this, but please explain how evolution is utterly impossible.

Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Then how do you know the odds are impossible.

Hint: They aren't.

Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.
 
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

You keep saying that, but you have failed to demonstrate it. I can say anything I like, but it won't necessarily make it true.
 
Upvote 0

PsychoSarah

Chaotic Neutral
Jan 13, 2014
20,522
2,609
✟102,963.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

Difficult for you maybe, I personally don't care if you find evolution hard to comprehend, it has no impact on whether or not evolution is possible.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Difficult for you maybe, I personally don't care if you find evolution hard to comprehend, it has no impact on whether or not evolution is possible.

But that is so easy. If they can't (or refuse) to understand it, it must not be true.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's the 'reaction du jour' when one disagrees with another here.

I only put people on Ignore if:
A. They are constantly being insulting/ flaming
B. They are intransigent and do nothing but repeat themselves
C. They are clearly trolling.

All of which are against forum rules of behavior, btw.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Evolution is based on trial and error over time. When the odds of that process producing life as we know it are contemplated, it adds up to impossible.

I said contemplated, not calculated. It's actually difficult to even imagine evolution happening.

It is very common for creationists to dismiss evolution because they cannot imagine how it can happen. It has nothing to due with actually calculating odds.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I only put people on Ignore if:
A. They are constantly being insulting/ flaming
B. They are intransigent and do nothing but repeat themselves
C. They are clearly trolling.

All of which are against forum rules of behavior, btw.

Nothing wrong with that.

For me, I will tolerate a lot of the above, if I feel there is some entertainment value in it. When that goes away, nothing left to intrigue me.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

Let's say I start driving one day from Fargo, ND and take random left and right turns for 24 hrs. I wind up in Saint Cloud, MN. What are the odds that I would wind up in St. Cloud, by taking random turns? Does that mean it did not happen?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Let's say I start driving one day from Fargo, ND and take random left and right turns for 24 hrs. I wind up in Saint Cloud, MN. What are the odds that I would wind up in St. Cloud, by taking random turns? Does that mean it did not happen?

I guess that means all the lotto winners really didn't win, because the odds were so much against them.
 
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

selfinflikted

Under Deck
Jul 13, 2006
11,441
786
46
✟39,014.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
It is very common for creationists to dismiss evolution because they cannot imagine how it can happen. It has nothing to due with actually calculating odds.

And it has nothing to do with whether evolution actually happens, either.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Sure, if you use the end product as proof of the process. But if you start at the beginning, using trial and error over time, you can't get here from there.

Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

The odds of something happening that has already happened is 1 in 1, because it happened.

Using your failed logic, there should only be a winner in 1 in every 150 million Powerball drawings. In real life, people win the Powerball all of the time.
 
Upvote 0
D

DerelictJunction

Guest
Let's cut this log of bologna up and address it a slice at a time.
From: Atomic theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Philosophical atomism
Main article: Atomism
The idea that matter is made up of discrete units is a very old one, appearing in many ancient cultures such as Greece and India. The principle ancient Greek atomists included Leucippus, Democritus. Ancient Indian atomists included Ajivika and Carvaka Jains. The relationship between Greek and Indian atomism, whether they were arrived at independently or influenced each other, is a matter of debate. However, these ideas were founded in philosophical and theological reasoning rather than evidence and experimentation. As a result, their views on what atoms look like and how they behave were very incorrect. They also couldn't convince everybody, so atomism was but one of a number of competing theories on the nature of matter. It wasn't until the 19th century that the idea was embraced and refined by scientists, as the blossoming science of chemistry produced discoveries that only the concept of atoms could explain.

The fact that the original idea concerning atomic theory was a philosophical notion has no bearing on the validity of atomic theory. Why should it have any bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution?

A great many early chemists had as their goal the idea of turning base metals into gold....IOW greed. However, you would not say the entire field of chemistry is invalidated by the motivations of the early supporters. Why do you think the validity of the theory of evolution is invalidated by the motivations of its early supporters?

We have revealed the entire first section of lifepsyop's, or whoever he may have copied it from, objection to evolution to be mere unevidenced emotional appeal. Now we can move on to his other assertions.
 
Upvote 0