Paradigm Shift: Holistic Darwinism VS the Selfish Gene

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then we must have a mexican standoff because you fail to prove that antitheism shows that God does not exist. Like I said this is the whole premise of authors like Sinclair Lewis. Anti theists end up as theists because in their attempt to prove that God does not exist they end up coming to a saving knowledge of the truth and they realize that God does exist. Read the testimony of people like Francis Collins and how he became a christian. Often intellectuals become saved through their anti theistic efforts to try to prove that there is no God and that He does not exist. This is why Malachi 3:10b says: "prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts". People have the burden to prove or disprove. If you want me to prove something then you have the burden to disprove it.

I'm not the one making the positive claim though. I'm not even making a claim. I have been consistently asking you to prove how anti-theism proves that God exists and you have given absolutely nothing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I'm not the one making the positive claim though. I'm not even making a claim. I have been consistently asking you to prove how anti-theism proves that God exists and you have given absolutely nothing.

The author of the article is the one making the claim. In order to have a paradigm shift you have to have a old and a new paradigm. In the same way to have a thesis you have to have an anti thesis. The foundation of science is that a thesis has to be falsifiable or testable in order to exist. Of course you can build a strawman and tear down your own strawman. Otherwise if you have are anti something, then you have to have something to falsify or be against. If not then you are just shadow boxing with yourself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The author of the article is the one making the claim. In order to have a paradigm shift you have to have a old and a new paradigm. In the same way to have a thesis you have to have an anti thesis. The foundation of science is that a thesis has to be falsifiable or testable in order to exist. Of course you can build a strawman and tear down your own strawman. Otherwise if you have are anti something, then you have to have something to falsify or be against. If not then you are just shadow boxing with yourself.

Joshua, you said in this thread that anti-theism proves that God exist. When I asked you to provide evidence for this, you have once again gone off on several rants that explain nothing and say nothing either.
The only one using strawmen and doing shadow boxing is you.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Joshua, you said in this thread that anti-theism proves that God exist.

How many times are we going to go around this marry go round. You can not be against NOTHING. You have to be against something. That is the meaning of the word anti. I think you are getting this confused with atheism which is a form of being agnostic. A lack of belief is different then being against or anti something. "Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism." wiki

Do you want to get back on the subject or do you want to continue to try to hijack the thread?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How many times are we going to go around this marry go round. You can not be against NOTHING. You have to be against something. That is the meaning of the word anti. I think you are getting this confused with atheism which is a form of being agnostic. A lack of belief is different then being against or anti something. "Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is the opposition to theism." wiki

Do you want to get back on the subject or do you want to continue to try to hijack the thread?

You hijacked your own thread by trying to say that anti-theism is proof that God exists!
And you didn't even have a subject to being with since you instantly tried to say that a paradigm shift in evolution is equal to the difference between non-theistic evolution and theistic evolution. Your premise was flawed from the beginning.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You hijacked your own thread by trying to say that anti-theism is proof that God exists!
And you didn't even have a subject to being with since you instantly tried to say that a paradigm shift in evolution is equal to the difference between non-theistic evolution and theistic evolution. Your premise was flawed from the beginning.

What I said was: "Actually I already answered this in post number 19. You have theists and you have anti theists evolutionists. BOTH prove there is a God. As Cahn points out in his book the Nemesis is a part of the paradigm. I think the problem is people do not understand what is real and what is a counterfeit forgery copy."

Now you want to argue that there is no difference between a theist and an anti theist. Just like you want to try to argue that there is not difference between theistic evolution and non theistic evolution. This is the same sort of liberal thinking that gives us gender confusion when they say there is no difference between male and female. Of course we know that this is because women want to take on rolls that have traditionally been filled by men.

What you need to do is understand what a counterfeit and what is a forgery. The way you can tell a forgery is to study the original. If you spend all of your time to study counterfeits and forgeries then you will never know what an original looks like.

 

[joshua 1 9]

These are the links again if anyone wants to read them so we can get this thread back on topic.

Reshaping Darwin’s Tree: Impact of the Symbiome (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317495996_Reshaping_Darwin's_Tree_Impact_of_the_Symbiome [accessed Nov 13 2017].

SYMPHY: Researchers Propose New ‘Tree of Life’ Framework that Incorporates Symbiomes | Biology | Sci-News.com

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170607123823.htm

http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-...m/retrieve/pii/S0169534717301258?showall=true

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317495996_Reshaping_Darwin's_Tree_Impact_of_the_Symbiome

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is the new tree of life for evolution that presents a new paradigm for science. You can read the details if you click on the link. “The goal is to transform a two-dimensional tree into one that is multi-dimensional and includes biological interactions among species.” SYMPHY: Researchers Propose New ‘Tree of Life’ Framework that Incorporates Symbiomes | Biology | Sci-News.com

 

[joshua 1 9]

You hijacked your own thread

You are trying to use Logical Fallacy to derail a thread. This sort of approach is very common and we see it all the time with people that otherwise have nothing to add to the conversation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What I said was: "Actually I already answered this in post number 19. You have theists and you have anti theists evolutionists. BOTH prove there is a God. As Cahn points out in his book the Nemesis is a part of the paradigm. I think the problem is people do not understand what is real and what is a counterfeit forgery copy."

Now you want to argue that there is no difference between a theist and an anti theist. Just like you want to try to argue that there is not difference between theistic evolution and non theistic evolution. This is the same sort of liberal thinking that gives us gender confusion when they say there is no difference between male and female. Of course we know that this is because women want to take on rolls that have traditionally been filled by men.

What you need to do is understand what a counterfeit and what is a forgery. The way you can tell a forgery is to study the original. If you spend all of your time to study counterfeits and forgeries then you will never know what an original looks like.

Joshua, you obviously never intended to keep this thread on topic because you started talking about a topic that is in no way covered or even talked about in the links you included. None of them talk about theistic or atheistic evolution, NOWHERE! All they talk about is whether or not the inclusion of symbiomes in Tree of Life will have a serious affect on the theory of evolution.

All you are doing is refusing to actually accept that fact that what you are personally talking about is absolute bunk.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are trying to use Logical Fallacy to derail a thread. This sort of approach is very common and we see it all the time with people that otherwise have nothing to add to the conversation.

"Trying to use Logical Fallacy"? Joshua, what logical fallacy am I using? Am I using them all at once, or is somehow pointing out the fact that you don't actually have a point or a conversation to have is a fallacy?

 

[tas8831]

That's still not proving that anti-theists prove that God exists. How can claiming to live a life without God be prove for God?

Amazing, isn't it?

 

[tas8831]

This is not a Bible word. I only deal with words that I can find in the Bible.

So why do you discuss evolution?

 

[Herman Hedning]

"Trying to use Logical Fallacy"? Joshua, what logical fallacy am I using? Am I using them all at once, or is somehow pointing out the fact that you don't actually have a point or a conversation to have is a fallacy?

Maybe if you actually click the link, you'll find out what fallacy joshua 1 9 thinks you comitted.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe if you actually click the link, you'll find out what fallacy joshua 1 9 thinks you comitted.

Oh, okay. Funny though since I don't get how pointing out how he actually derailed his own thread by bringing up religion is a loaded question.

 

[joshua 1 9]

what you are personally talking about is absolute bunk.

We are talking about the tree of life. You think that the tree of life is "bunk"? Does that mean you do not accept or believe the theory of evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We are talking about the tree of life. You think that the tree of life is "bunk"? Does that mean you do not accept or believe the theory of evolution?

Stop twisting what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that the Tree of Life was bunk. What is bunk is your attempt to try and force religion in to a discussion where religion was not even referenced or mentioned.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Stop twisting what I'm saying. Nowhere did I say that the Tree of Life was bunk. What is bunk is your attempt to try and force religion in to a discussion where religion was not even referenced or mentioned.

Can you give me an example of what your talking about? Do you know that Creation is a religious belief?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In your very first post of this thread:

"In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.

Holistic Darwinism: the new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science. - PubMed - NCBI

Even this debate goes back to Harvard Professors: biologist Ernst Mayr and
Stephen Jay Gould who challenged the Modern Synthesis.

It all comes down to the battle between theistic and atheistic evolution."

Nowhere in the article you linked to is religion mentioned, referenced or even talked about, but for some reason you felt the need to cram it in.

 

[Willby]

This is the new tree of life for evolution that presents a new paradigm for science. You can read the details if you click on the link. “The goal is to transform a two-dimensional tree into one that is multi-dimensional and includes biological interactions among species.” SYMPHY: Researchers Propose New ‘Tree of Life’ Framework that Incorporates Symbiomes | Biology | Sci-News.com

None of what you have shown backs up your original comment of:

'In Dawkins 1976 book: The Selfish Gene, it was never a question that Dawkins would be proven wrong. The only question was when and where would he be proven wrong.'

At best you have shown that some consider it insufficient.

Also none of this is relevent to the validity of ToE, its about ironing out the details.

Throwing around the word 'paradigm' doesn't add substance to your argument, although to be honest I'm not exactly sure what argument you are really making.

Would you be able to.

1) Describe exactly what you think 'The Selfish Gene' is.

2) In what way you think it is wrong.

3) What you think the implication of this is to ToE.