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.
If science affirms Newton's work - such as by landing a space probe on a moon of Saturn - there wouldn't be Einstein's theory of relativity.If science affirms Darwin's work, there wouldn't be Neo-Darwinism.
But remember:But... people didn't get anywhere near there via miracle. They used machines, we did that on our own.
If science affirms Newton's work - such as by landing a space probe on a moon of Saturn - there wouldn't be Einstein's theory of relativity.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a rather silly term. The fact is that science is always changing. It is always getting closer and closer to a full explanation. I don't know why someone would settle for an incomplete explanation when a more complete one was available.This portion of the forum is about creation and evolution. Just pointing out that Darwin's guesses and suppositions were discarded in favor of Neo-Darwinism....that's how Neo-Darwinism was birthed.
Stay tuned for Neo-Neo Darwinism, the latest 'scientific truth'.
"Neo-Darwinism" is a rather silly term.
The fact is that science is always changing.
It is always getting closer and closer to a full explanation.
I don't know why someone would settle for an incomplete explanation when a more complete one was available.
I don't know about "silly". It's an indicator that the guesses and suppositions of Darwin needed to be rejected in favor of new guesses and suppositions.
Yeah, that's why science cannot be fully trusted.
Or maybe further and further away.
Newer guesses and suppositions do not always equate with more accurate.
Calling deduction based upon evidence "guesses" only demonstrates your ignorance.
Actually it is why science can be trusted more than any other philosophy. Look at all of the errors in the Bible. There is no self correction method for the Bible so they are stuck there forever, though eventually people do reinterpret it.
I am betting that you can't name a case.
But you are wrong to call them that, as you and I both know.
IF Darwin would have had evidence, based on the scientific method, there would be no Neo-Darwinism.
Similarly, if you had evidence, based on the scientific method, you'd not be constantly making worthless and baseless claims.
Science can be 'trusted' until the newer 'truth' replaces the old 'truth.
In the 'scientific' constant restatement of 'truth', who knows if they're getting closer to truth or further away?
Not at all. If they weren't guesses and suppositions, there would be no need to discard them when newer 'truths' are proposed (actually more guesses and suppositions).
Mammals arent made of plastic, silly goose!
That is a non-sequitur.
Wrong. I have explained to you why you cannot demand evidence from me. I will help you in any way that I can, but since you have improperly denied evidence in the past there is no point in providing you with more evidence.
Science has been more trustworthy than any other source for quite some time. When Einstein correct Newton it did not automatically make Newton "wrong", his answers are simply more complete and more accurate. Both are far more accurate than the beliefs of the writers of the Bible that claimed the Earth could not move.
Because it answers more questions more accurately than it did in the past. In the case of the theory of evolution more problems are more fully answered than before.
This is merely more evidence that you have no idea how science is done no matter how many times you post the pretty picture of the scientific method.
Not at all. It's a fact.
Keep making your worthless and baseless claims of evidence.....and excuses.[/qluote]
Now you are making up false charges.
The forum is about creation and evolution, thus the focus on Darwin.....and the new improved Neo-Darwinism. Well, allegedly new and improved.
Yes, and to others I will give evidence when requested. You on the other hand have disqualified yourself.
What's not answered is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of Darwinism.
Science works more on the "what" than on the "how". But perhaps I did not understand you. Exactly what do you mean by the "how"?
The 'pretty picture' pretty well exposes your complete and total failure to provide evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' claims of Darwinism.
Nope. Not at all. Scientists who work on evolution always follow the scientific method. I don't understand where you got the idea that they don't. Sadly you have only shown that you either don't understand how they do their work or you won't let yourself understand.
But it LOOKS like a mammal.
I guess we are going beyond looks then.
Neo-Darwinism is not all that different from "Darwinism". The main difference is that we have learned quite a bit since Darwin's time. Darwin did not understand genetics since it did not exist when he wrote his work. The work of Mendel was lost for a time. And Mendel only took baby steps. Darwin thought that there was simply a blending. He did not understand the idea of a limited number of genes coming from each parent. It also includes refinements such as the work of Gould and others that showed that evolution is not a slow steady process, but rather one that goes forward by fits and starts.I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.
I find it very amusing how everybody here is an expert on Darwin and yet probably most of you haven't read a thing he ever wrote. That's what I am doing now, going to reading his "Origins" because I simply do not trust the world of uninformed laity. For example, how many here could right now right off the top of their heads list out five major differences between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism. . Go ahead, I double dog dare any one of you. How many of you could demonstrate you actually have read Darwin? Go ahead, someone. I double dog dare you to stand up and prove you have actually read Darwin.
Neo-Darwinism is not all that different from "Darwinism". The main difference is that we have learned quite a bit since Darwin's time. Darwin did not understand genetics since it did not exist when he wrote his work. The work of Mendel was lost for a time. And Mendel only took baby steps. Darwin thought that there was simply a blending. He did not understand the idea of a limited number of genes coming from each parent. It also includes refinements such as the work of Gould and others that showed that evolution is not a slow steady process, but rather one that goes forward by fits and starts.
It is not as if NeoDarwinism refuted Darwinism. No more than Einstein's theory of gravity refuted Newton's gravity. Einstein is merely more precise and more complete of an explanation. The same applies to "Neo-Darwinism".
Define what you mean by "how" in the first place. It seems that you are not using the word correctly.I triple-dog dare anyone to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for how humanity, as well as all life we observe today, was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago only by naturalistic mechanisms.
Wrong, but then you don't understand evidence. You won't even let yourself learn what evidence is though people have offered time and time again.Neo-Darwinism means that new guesses and suppositions replaces Darwin's guesses and suppositions.
Define what you mean by "how" in the first place. It seems that you are not using the word correctly.
Wrong, but then you don't understand evidence. You won't even let yourself learn what evidence is though people have offered time and time again.
The scientific method does not work on guesses and suppositions. It works on evidence, and guess what? Most of it is "what" evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?