The tip of the ice berg

[Shemjaza]

Not all of my views are clearly defined.

But when it's such a significant part of someones public life, it seems weird that specifics aren't clarified.

 

[BPPLEE]

Except that if you didn't, you'd have known that Darwinian evolution has long been superseded by the modern theory of evolution. Darwinian evolution specifically refers to evolution has thought of and evidenced by Charles Darwin. It is no longer used as the theory of evolution.

And semantically, theistic evolution is and isn't creationism, since it does and also doesn't fit the 'models' of creation.

I am aware that the modern theory takes in account genetics and other factors that Darwin didn't but I'm not an expert on it and wouldn't try to argue with you about it. Just because I posted a link about Tour doesn't mean I agree with everything Aussie Pete is saying

 

[ottawak]

I didn't sweep anything under the broad brush of Darwinism that is what the link I posted referred to. Isn't Theistic Evolution a form of creation? Are people who believe in that Creationists?

Generally, the term "creationist" when used alone is assumed to mean a young-Earth of biblical creationist. Granted, that is somewhat careless speech, but to apply the term to anyone who believes in a god (and hence, creation by that god) would be useless in this forum since so many theists accept the theory of evolution. Creationists do try it on, since for some reason many of them seem to want to turn the creation/evolution debate into a theism/atheism debate, but that is really off topic in this forum.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, that's fine, since "Darwinism" is no more than an historical curiosity.

So without Darwin you would still have the modern theory of evolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

So without Darwin you would still have the modern theory of evolution?

Absolutely.

He didn't invent evolution any more than Newton invented gravity and momentum.

The evidence is there to be discovered.

I suspect if there was no Darwin we'd still be here arguing with Creationists calling us Wallaceonians or something similar.

 

[ottawak]

So without Darwin you would still have the modern theory of evolution?

Very likely. Darwin wasn't the only one who had thought of it--he justpublished first.

 

[BPPLEE]

Very likely. Darwin wasn't the only one who had thought of it--he justpublished first.

From what I am reading a lot of people agree with you

 

[Shemjaza]

From what I am reading a lot of people agree with you

That's the thing about true things... their truth isn't controlled by who first tells you about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Very likely. Darwin wasn't the only one who had thought of it--he justpublished first.

"Publish or perish," as they say.

 

[BPPLEE]

That's the thing about true things... their truth isn't controlled by who first tells you about it.

Not everyone agrees. It seems science went down some rabbit trails when this was being worked out

 

[Astrid]

From what I am reading a lot of people agree with you

Its not just " agree", its a fact

 

[BPPLEE]

Its not just " agree", its a fact

What is a fact? The Theory of Evolution? Ottawak says you don't get that with a scientific theory. Read what he posted in his reply to Aussie Pete. Or that someone else would have discovered it? I can't see how you call that a fact

 

[AV1611VET]

What is a fact? The Theory of Evolution? Ottawak says you don't get that with a scientific theory. Read what he posted in his reply to Aussie Pete. Or that someone else would have discovered it? I can't see how you call that a fact.

A brown-eyed mom and dad have a brown-eyed baby.

Therefore we crawled out of an ocean that was created when a comet hit the earth.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not everyone agrees. It seems science went down some rabbit trails when this was being worked out

Scientific evidence doesn't give you perfection, it gives you demonstrable conclusions.

People can disagree... but if there reason is just they don't like the conclusion, then it isn't very convincing.

Like with Newton and gravity, the initial results aren't complete, but the general facts are still basically correct.

 

[eleos1954]

That has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution. Having to use a dictionary to define a scientific term is super cringe brah.

Science has a very good clue about what Earth was like back then. Did you not get taught that in school?

Finally, thanks for providing great evidence that my previous assertion is bang on.

Sure evolution is taught in school ... life on earth is way way complex as we have learned from science .... there is scientific data collected and then there are many interpretations/theories of the data collected .... and there are many.

No one was there .... so it's not/wasn't observable, nor testable .... and to our knowledge has not been repeated.

The mathematical probability of "happen chance" over billions of years for even a single cell to "form" is horrendous much less with the cells ability to copy itself.

The complexity of life screams design.

 

[eleos1954]

No, it cannot be theorized without evidence. If you say there is no evidence, the best you can hope for is an hypothesis.

There is data collected and there are many interpretations of that data .... MANY.

 

[TLK Valentine]

From what I am reading a lot of people agree with you

That's the way truth is supposed to work... and when it doesn't, you should probably ask why.

Evolution was a well accepted scientific theory before Darwin came along -- the missing piece was how... the actual mechanism by which populations evolve.

Darwin's contribution was his theory of Natural Selection... which in hindsight seemed so self-evident that, according to rumor, upon hearing of it, Darwin's friend, Thomas Henry Huxley, was said to exclaim something along the lines of, "how stupid of me to not think of it first!"

... But we shouldn't put too much stock in rumors.

The point is that evolution was already a well-accepted scientific idea before Darwin, and if he hadn't proposed the theory of Natural Selection, someone else would have, and nothing would be different except the name of the Creationists' boogeyman.

 

[TLK Valentine]

"Publish or perish," as they say.

"They" include Jesus:

Luke 8:16-18 --
No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.
Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

 

[TLK Valentine]

A brown-eyed mom and dad have a brown-eyed baby.

Therefore we crawled out of an ocean that was created when a comet hit the earth.

2,000 years ago, a man allegedly rose from the dead.
Therefore we should take you seriously, AV?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sure evolution is taught in school ... life on earth is way way complex as we have learned from science .... there is scientific data collected and then there are many interpretations/theories of the data collected .... and there are many.

No one was there .... so it's not/wasn't observable, nor testable .... and to our knowledge has not been repeated.

The mathematical probability of "happen chance" over billions of years for even a single cell to "form" is horrendous much less with the cells ability to copy itself.

The complexity of life screams design.

Arguments from incredulity go nowhere... just so you know.