The "damnable doctrine" of Charles Darwin

[theHawk]

I get the impression you're being purposely thick

Google:abiogenesis

Btw, magic isn't an explanaton

Google it yourself, you'll find that scientists still can't figure out how exactly the first mircobe of life was created. All they have are theories

We still don't know that USMB exists or that there was ever man named Barrack Obama or a planet named Earth. All we have is theories.


What is your point?

My point is that evolutionists always speak as if Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific fact, when it is not. Yet they will attack anyone who comes up with another idea ...intelligent design is a good example.
Why be so closed minded when Darwin nor "abiogenesis" explain how life was created?

 

[gcomeau]

My point is that evolutionists always speak as if Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific fact, when it is not.

Obviously. It's a theory.

However, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution (Observed, tested, absolutely completely confirmed... FACT).

That's what scientific theories do you know. Just like the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity. And the germ theory of disease explains the fact that people get sick. Etc...

Yet they will attack anyone who comes up with another idea ...intelligent design is a good example.

It's an excellent example... of completely debunked pseudoscience.

Why be so closed minded when Darwin nor "abiogenesis" explain how life was created?

Short version? Organic chemistry. That's how life was created.

Longer version... well, this should give you an intro: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations . It's was written to explain to people why idiotic creationist probability arguments about life being created "by random chance" were, well, idiotic... but in the process it gives a decent layman's overview of how these things work.

We don't know exactly what specific reactions would have occurred in the sequence. Could have been a lot of different things and it's damn hard to isolate exactly which one it was several billion years after the fact... but the general shape of how it happens chemically isn't actually some giant mystery.

And that aside, even if we didn't have any faint little clue what possibly could have happened to initially create life. Like, not even a guess, no ideas whatsoever. What does that have to do.... exactly... with the validity of the theory of evolution?

 

[gcomeau]

Abiogenesis is even more of a crackpot theory than evolution.

Any chance you're going to answer my question any time soon?

Keep posting your stages. I am reading each one with great interest

And while you've been reading them Do You Accept The Validity Of The Information In Them So Far?

Would you please just answer that incredibly simple question instead of avoiding it every single time I ask you? Do you object to the accuracy or validity of any piece of information I have thus far posted?

 

[N4mddissent]

Post #105 should have helped you better follow the exchange. Good job and finding the point I was called a "liar" on. As far as I am concerned Richard Dawkins assertion that, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" very much supports the point I was challenged. I do not really care whether you like it or not, if you want make the case that I am a also a "liar" in your opinion.

What is your source for stating that evolution is part of the Catholic belief system?

I do not have time for the rest of your post. Again, I refer you to my question of post #98 so I can understand the relevance of whatever point you are trying to make.

I wasn't calling you a liar. If you want to say Charles Darwin influenced several generations, you will find no argument from me. His impact on our scientific knowledge has been immense. His theory has made predictions which time after time have come true. As far as Secular Humanists claiming Evolution is proof that there is no god- I haven't heard that argument from them. You can provide examples if you like, but if they consider that alone is evidence of the absence of god, then they are wrong. It does not rationally follow, which is why Catholics can accept evolution and god.

My source for evolution and Catholicism is the Pope.

You should make time for the rest of my post, since it would save you the time of continuing this thread.

Even if I agreed with you and said Charles Darwin was a rotten bastard and his theory causes people to become genocidal maniacs, it still doesn't affect whether the theory is true or false. We don't get to pick reality according to how we think it should be. I think you read the rest of my post, but didn't want to deal with the reflection of your dishonest arguments.

So answer this: Why do you use the term Darwinist instead of Evolutionist?

This response only concerns your most recent post, I will look at the previous one separately.

You claim that your "source for evolution and Catholicism being the Pope." Now I do have to go back to an earlier post to point out what you stated in that regard.

"Evolution is part of the Catholic belief system as well."

So I guess your source a Pope but you did not specify which Pope although I suspect it was something John Paul II might have said in passing. I wondered if you might cite an encyclical or the Catechism but that was not the case. Since your answer was so vague I cannot address any quote that might back up your statement unless you do provide the details.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church is neutral on the question of evolution. I was born and raised in the Post Vatican II Catholic faith and my experience was the OT was rarely stressed. Anyone else that has a similar background as myself could probably confirm what I say. Prove me wrong, my understanding is the Catholic Church is less concerned about the biological origin of humans, neutral on evolution, and more concerned with the soul. In 2008, the Vatican announced that the belief in extra-terrestrial life is not inconsistent with Catholicism. The distinction just like the question of evolution is that the Church is neutral.

An example of the Catholic belief system is an official writing like an Humanea Vitea Encyclical.

.

Catechism
159. 159. Faith and science: "...methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....

Pope John Paul II on evolution:

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

I stand by my original post and I even specified my original objective of that post when questioned earlier. As I recall, I stated that my original objective was to create awareness about Charles Darwin that I felt was not included in sanitized accounts of the man. I also pointed out that Darwin's theories according to biographers Desmond and Moore were always intended to have a social application. I provided examples, then went on to point out the devastating long term consequences of that social application.

The theory of evolution is a secondary issue to the point I was making and therefore if you read my posts in good faith you would not be asking me why I used the term "Darwinist" instead of "Evolutionist." Later on as the topic expanded in due course I stated several times that I do not deny the process of evolution in general, I question the process specifically in regard to the origin of modern man. I provided several names of well respected researchers of anthropology and some of their views to clarify what I meant by legitimate questioning.

So you meant this to just be a bland history lesson? Your entire point was that Darwin was not above thinking like his contemporaries in regards to race? Anyone with a concept of historical perspective and takes the total body of Darwin's work would realize that he was a bigot by today's standards, but tolerant and compassionate by the standards of his time. He was a staunch abolitionist who believed that all human beings were related.

I notice you didn't provide a lot of examples of Darwin actually advocating the application of his theory to social systems. He never intended his theory to be used that way. He meant his theory to explain the origin of species, thus the title of the book. It's true that he drew upon Malthus' social selection theories for inspiration, but that is not the same as advocating for the application of those theories in society.

For one thing, natural selection is a passive system. If at any point you are culling the weakest from your ranks, then you are engaging in artificial selection, not natural selection.

And if you don't accept the evolutionary origins of man, then you reject the Theory of Evolution, part of which is the common descent of all living things. Can you explain shared endogenous retroviral insertions between man and other animals?

The term Darwinists still doesn't make sense. If you intend it to refer to people who believe in common descent, then you are misusing the term evolution. If you want to selectively choose what you believe, then that makes you the anamoly. The general understanding of an Evolutionist is someone who accepts common descent. I have never met a "Darwinist" since I have never met anyone who believed that Darwin was 100% right on every aspect of his understanding.

So instead of confusing everyone, why don't you define your terms, so that everyone knows exactly what the hell you're talking about.

What have you provided besides your besides your misconceptions? You state at one point that you are not calling me a "liar" and then you go on to calling my "arguments dishonest." Pony up hotshot, you either prove my arguments "dishonest," retract the statement or prove yourself a "liar." Your choice.

Take out a specific quote of mine and make a specific challenge

I have taken a specific quote and challenged it a number of times. You just don't respond. I even linked to the damn thing.

One can be dishonest without telling a lie. For example, if you make what you believe are true statements criticizing Darwin as a racist, and your real purpose is to try to paint everyone who accepts Evolution with the same brush, then you are acting dishonestly without telling a lie.

And your thread is pointless. I have never met any educated person who respects Charles Darwin who doesn't realize that he shared some Victorian views that today we would find appalling. No one believes he was a saint by today's standards.

In contrast, I have only seen those who are critics of Darwin due to religious beliefs who continually, through ignorance or intentional deceit, emphasize his unsavoury views without placing them within historical context. That is not an intellectually honest endeavor and hints at motivations other than simply "educating" people as you seem to claim was your intent.

 

[Sunni Man]

Abiogenesis is the scientific communities theory of magic.

Inorganic material somehow mixed together, and a spark of life magically turned the chemical soup into organic life.

and people accuse creationists and religious people of believing in nonsense and blind faith

 

[Douger]

It's hard to believe that Darwin's quack theory of evolution has been embraced by the world.

The pseuo science and nonsense it is based on stretches the bounds of reality.

Hundreds of years from now, people will look back and laugh at the stupid people who believed in this absurd fantasy.

Sunni, you're such an idiot. You think that allah made muslims out of clay!!!!!

Now go beat wife number 2, I hear she's pretty ugly.

Same color and smell.
Praize Wally ! PBUH

 

[N4mddissent]

And when did secular humanism and darwinism become synonymous? It's like saying heliocentrism and protestantism are the same thing.

No secular humanist believes in the "Theory of Magical Creation".

Do Darwin's theories provide any support to the view that Theism is a false belief system?

No. It provides an explanation for the origin of species. The modern synthesis does as well. (that's what we call modern Evolutionary Theory- not Darwin's theory).

Now, since those who adopt a materialistic philosophy have one less point of ignorance for which they could not provide a natural explanation, I'm sure they find it convenient. An atheists might have been troubled about his own origins prior to evolutionary theory. But he was still an atheist.

This was Dawkins point. If one is an atheist, then having the evolutionary explanation of origins fills an intellectual gap in ones understanding. But there have been atheists since ancient Greece without the need for Evolutionary theory.

 

[N4mddissent]

I don't think many people refute that "evolution" can and does happen in the natural world through natural selection. But Darwin's theories go much further than that. He claims all life originates from one single cell organism. Yet Darwin(and all scientists of his time) had zero comprehension of just how complex a single cell is. He also never even explains what the orgin of spieces is. How did we get from an all inorganic world to one with one living cell? If it was a simple mix of some primordial "soup" of chemicals then why hasn't the creation of single cell life from all inorganic parts been replicated in a lab? Or maybe life was first created on the "backs of crystals" like Richard Dawkins said.


Until Darwinist can scientifically replicate the creation of life from inorganic materials its a moot point to talk about evolution from monkeys to men.

You're right! Scientists should be ashamed. After all, it only took several hundred million years with the entire earth as a laboratory for life to begin here. I wonder why we in less than a century, trying to reconstruct atmospheric conditions from 4 thousand million years ago, have only produced the building blocks of life rather than a self-reproducing molecule... It's a damn shame....

 

[N4mddissent]

Google it yourself, you'll find that scientists still can't figure out how exactly the first mircobe of life was created. All they have are theories

We still don't know that USMB exists or that there was ever man named Barrack Obama or a planet named Earth. All we have is theories.


What is your point?

My point is that evolutionists always speak as if Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific fact, when it is not. Yet they will attack anyone who comes up with another idea ...intelligent design is a good example.
Why be so closed minded when Darwin nor "abiogenesis" explain how life was created?

Scientists speak as if Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. Biologists speak as if evolution is scientific facts. Science studies the natural world. Invisible magic beings are not part of the natural world. Evolution explains how the diversity of life could come from a single organism. Abiogenisis is an attempt to provide a natural explanation for the origin of that single organism. (By the way, no one believes the first organism was as complex as a modern cell...it was more likely some form of self-replicating molecule similar to RNA)

If you want to believe life appeared by magic, then feel free. But it has no bearing on evolutionary theory, and it is not science.

 

[N4mddissent]

Abiogenesis is the scientific communities theory of magic.

Inorganic material somehow mixed together, and a spark of life magically turned the chemical soup into organic life.

and people accuse creationists and religious people of believing in nonsense and blind faith

Define "spark of life"

 

[theHawk]

Short version? Organic chemistry. That's how life was created.

"Organic chemistry" has not proven how life was created.

We don't know exactly what specific reactions would have occurred in the sequence. Could have been a lot of different things and it's damn hard to isolate exactly which one it was several billion years after the fact... but the general shape of how it happens chemically isn't actually some giant mystery.

Thanks for proving my above point.
Science is EXACT. Something you can measure, something you can duplicate.
You can't just say we know the "general shape" of how something happens in science.
If it isn't some giant mystery then why do you say it "could of been a lot of different things"? You contradict yourself in one sentence.

And that aside, even if we didn't have any faint little clue what possibly could have happened to initially create life. Like, not even a guess, no ideas whatsoever. What does that have to do.... exactly... with the validity of the theory of evolution?

At least now you're admitting that evolutionists dont have a clue about how life was initially created.
The theory of evolution suggests that all life comes from one common ancestor, so is it a giant leap to call into question how that initial lifeform was created? Evidently for narrow minded people it is.

 

[theHawk]

Scientists speak as if Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. Biologists speak as if evolution is scientific facts. Science studies the natural world. Invisible magic beings are not part of the natural world. Evolution explains how the diversity of life could come from a single organism. Abiogenisis is an attempt to provide a natural explanation for the origin of that single organism. (By the way, no one believes the first organism was as complex as a modern cell...it was more likely some form of self-replicating molecule similar to RNA)

What is your point? Besides stating the obvious.

 

[N4mddissent]

Scientists speak as if Darwin's theory is a scientific fact. Biologists speak as if evolution is scientific facts. Science studies the natural world. Invisible magic beings are not part of the natural world. Evolution explains how the diversity of life could come from a single organism. Abiogenisis is an attempt to provide a natural explanation for the origin of that single organism. (By the way, no one believes the first organism was as complex as a modern cell...it was more likely some form of self-replicating molecule similar to RNA)

What is your point? Besides stating the obvious.

Well not obvious to everyone.

You said:

I don't think many people refute that "evolution" can and does happen in the natural world through natural selection. But Darwin's theories go much further than that. He claims all life originates from one single cell organism. Yet Darwin(and all scientists of his time) had zero comprehension of just how complex a single cell is. He also never even explains what the orgin of spieces is. How did we get from an all inorganic world to one with one living cell? If it was a simple mix of some primordial "soup" of chemicals then why hasn't the creation of single cell life from all inorganic parts been replicated in a lab? Or maybe life was first created on the "backs of crystals" like Richard Dawkins said.


Until Darwinist can scientifically replicate the creation of life from inorganic materials its a moot point to talk about evolution from monkeys to men.

 

[theHawk]

Well not obvious to everyone.

You said:

So your point is to repost something I already said, and explained in further detail on subsequent posts to other confused Darwinists who didn't understand either.

 

[N4mddissent]

Well not obvious to everyone.

You said:

So your point is to repost something I already said, and explained in further detail on subsequent posts to other confused Darwinists who didn't understand either.

You were the one obviously confusing the origin of species with the origin of life, as demonstrated by your own words.

And I'm not a Darwinist. I'm a rationalist.

Now, since other rational people can read your words and see that I'm correct, I recommend manning up and admitting you made a mistake so as not to continue looking like a complete ass.

 

[Father Time]

Abiogenesis is the scientific communities theory of magic.

Inorganic material somehow mixed together, and a spark of life magically turned the chemical soup into organic life.

and people accuse creationists and religious people of believing in nonsense and blind faith

Chemicals mixing together and reacting is somehow magic?

 

[theHawk]

You were the one obviously confusing the origin of species with the origin of life, as demonstrated by your own words.

And I'm not a Darwinist. I'm a rationalist.

Now, since other rational people can read your words and see that I'm correct, I recommend manning up and admitting you made a mistake so as not to continue looking like a complete ass.

I'm not confused with the definitions of "the origin of species" and the "origin of life". If the origin of all species comes from one common ancestor, one single cell mirco-organism, is it irrational to ask how that first lifeform was first created? Is it irrational to say the two are linked?

 

[Father Time]

You were the one obviously confusing the origin of species with the origin of life, as demonstrated by your own words.

And I'm not a Darwinist. I'm a rationalist.

Now, since other rational people can read your words and see that I'm correct, I recommend manning up and admitting you made a mistake so as not to continue looking like a complete ass.

I'm not confused with the definitions of "the origin of species" and the "origin of life". If the origin of all species comes from one common ancestor, one single cell mirco-organism, is it irrational to ask how that first lifeform was first created? Is it irrational to say the two are linked?

Yes they're linked but evolution doesn't try to answer that question. Even if you could prove the first speck of life was created by a God that would not be evidence against evolution.

 

[gcomeau]

"Organic chemistry" has not proven how life was created.

Organic chemistry IS how life was created.

Thanks for proving my above point.
Science is EXACT.

You are under the impression I "proved your point" because you obviously don't understand how science works.

Science is best approximations, it is never "EXACT". Exact is for mathematicians working on theory instead of real world applications.

Something you can measure, something you can duplicate.

...to within reasonable error margins.

You can't just say we know the "general shape" of how something happens in science.

Actually, that's what happens all day every day in science.

If it isn't some giant mystery then why do you say it "could of been a lot of different things"? You contradict yourself in one sentence.

No, I don't. You just don't understand the subject.

Let's see if you can't get this better if we try shifting to the scientific investigation of something else. Say... forensic science.

Now, forensic science can look at a homicide victim and KNOW some things. Like... they were killed. And certain details about how they were killed (ie: "they were shot in the face".)

However, they still could have been shot in a lot of ways and it can be difficult to determine those by coming along after the fact. For example, they could have been shot by someone holding the gun in their left hand, they could have been shot by someone holding the gun in their right hand. Nobody saw it happen, no prints... how do you tell?

Does the inability to tell that mean we can't tell if he was shot at all??? Ummm, no. See, the bullet wound is kind of a giveaway and it didn't disappear just because we were unable to immediately figure out which hand his killer shot him with.

Now, early peptide sequences and such could have been the result of a LOT of different chemical reactions. And it's really hard to tell which specific ones it was looking at things from billions of years after the fact. Does that mean we can no longer tell any reaction occurred at all???. Ummm, no. It doesn't.

And that aside, even if we didn't have any faint little clue what possibly could have happened to initially create life. Like, not even a guess, no ideas whatsoever. What does that have to do.... exactly... with the validity of the theory of evolution?

At least now you're admitting that evolutionists dont have a clue about how life was initially created.

Did you see the word "if" in that statement you replied to? I said: "IF we didn't have any faint little clue..."

That denotes a hypothetical. Not a description of reality.

The theory of evolution suggests that all life comes from one common ancestor, so is it a giant leap to call into question how that initial lifeform was created? Evidently for narrow minded people it is.

Or... you just don't have any idea what the hell you're talking about and probably shouldn't be rolling your eyes at people trying to explain it to you, since you're just embarassing yourself.

Nobody is telling you it's a giant leap to question how the initial life form formed. It's a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry.

They're telling you that has NO BEARING on the validity of evolutionary theory. Because it doesn't matter what the answer is, it doesn't change anything for evolution.

It was created through a random chemical process? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was magicked into existence by elves? Fine. Then it evolved.

It was engineered by an ancient alien race from another dimension? Fine. THEN IT EVOLVED.

Get it?

 

[Setarcos]

Abiogenesis is the scientific communities theory of magic.

Inorganic material somehow mixed together, and a spark of life magically turned the chemical soup into organic life.

and people accuse creationists and religious people of believing in nonsense and blind faith

Chemicals mixing together and reacting is somehow magic?

To 13th century minds, yes