Darwin's Birthday

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Perversions of Darwin's notions of natural selection have enabled far fewer evils than perversions of the scriptures (or even plain sense readings of certain scriptures). The theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. As with any truth, people have sought to force it to conform to prejudices they carried before they knew of the theory. In the ...[text shortened]... ncer and his disciples perverted it, what truths can you embrace? I submit that there are none.

...or even plain sense readings of certain scriptures...

I would say especially “plain sense readings,” if you mean literalistic/historicistic readings.

Originally posted by telerion
Your backpedaling . . .

TalkOrigins has one up though. While it is biased, it is biased and extremely well-educated on the issue. The education leads to the bias in this case, because in science their are not always two-sides to every story. If you don't understand what they're saying, that's your own fault. I figured given the Creationist pr at science or logic you have to step upon, you will attack every semblance of evolution.

[/b][/i]TalkOrigins has one up though. While it is biased, it is biased and extremely well-educated on the issue.

In many cases, half of writing history is hiding the truth.

The education leads to the bias in this case, because in science their are not always two-sides to every story.

Like the Korean scientist who claimed to have successfully cloned humans?

If you don't understand what they're saying, that's your own fault.

Ha. Comprehension skills? Pffft. 😛

I figured given the Creationist propaganda you eagerly embrace, obfuscation would be a bonus in your book.

(*delete long, verbose, tasteless reply*) 😵😀😀.

Anyway if it is your unbiased opinion that we should not celebrate Darwin's memory because some people have tried to use his big idea to justify their selfish motives, then by the same reasoning, you should be out passionately protesting Christmas.

I never said we shouldn't celebrate his memory. It was my intention to start off a discussion on Darwin, racism and evolution - I guess we got a little sidetracked into an exchange of ad hominems. I see you have carefully dodged my main question: did the Theory of Evolution have ethical ramifications?

Let's call a spade a spade. You don't like the implications of evolution, not because you've found serious holes in it or because some people have misapplied it, but rather because you haven't found a way to make it jive with your superstition. For that reason, no matter what science or logic you have to step upon, you will attack every semblance of evolution.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? I guess not. BTW, which theory do you mean? Darwinian evolution? Neo-Darwinian evolution? Punctuated Equilibrium?

You want to call a spade a spade? I have not seen one supporter of evolution on this forum honest enough to admit the evidential short-comings of the theory. So allow me to quote some excerpts from the great Charlie's "Origin":

"Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined... But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the Earth?

...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Let me also quote the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (who, I don't need to remind you, was an ardent evolutionist):

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."*

*Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History (May 1977): 14

Gould continues to say:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."*

*Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History 86(6): 22-30 (1977)

It's not surprising that he formulated "punctuated equilibrium", he had to somehow get around the lack of evidence.

Originally posted by rwingett
Rejoice, rejoice! I invite all enlightened secularists and all intellectually stunted christian reactionaries to join me in celebrating the birthday of Charles Darwin, born on this day in 1809 (the same birthday as Abraham Lincoln). For more things Darwin, you can go to:

http://www.darwinday.org/

BOOOOOOOO!!!!!

Originally posted by Halitose
I see you have carefully dodged my main question: did the Theory of Evolution have ethical ramifications?

No. I do not readily see any necessary ethical ramifications of the TOE. It is like Big Bang or Quantum Physics. People use them all the time as support for their ethos, but these ideas stand on their own empirically and do not logically imply anything ethically.

Originally posted by Halitose
Ever heard of theistic evolution? I guess not. BTW, which theory do you mean? Darwinian evolution? Neo-Darwinian evolution? Punctuated Equilibrium?

Of course I heard of theistic evolution. I think it is an honest position for a theist and is advanced by some biologists I admire, like Ken Miller for example. Your second question attempts to construct an illusion. These are not three exclusive theories. The latter two are improvements on the first. So the simple answer is "all of them."

Originally posted by Halitose
You want to call a spade a spade? I have not seen one supporter of evolution on this forum honest enough to admit the evidential short-comings of the theory.

That's because all the "short-comings" you bring up are distortions and strawmen. It's no surprise given the source. (That's not ad hom by the way. We've been over what is and isn't an ad hom.)

Is there room for our understanding of how evolution works to improve? Yes. Does this mean that evolution is some weak hypothesis on par with panaspermia and intelligent design (not even a hypothesis at this point) and can be dismissed if it does not comport with your theology without surrendering intellectual integrity? Certainly not!

I've got to go teach some kids right now. I'll address the remainder of your post when I'm through corrupting the young. Their parents should have sent 'em to Bob Jones. (wicked laughter)

Originally posted by telerion
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I see you have carefully dodged my main question: did the Theory of Evolution have ethical ramifications?

No. I do not readily see any necessary ethical ramifications of the TOE. It is like Big Bang or Quantum Physics. People use them all the time as support for their ethos, but these ideas stand on ...[text shortened]... ing the young. Their parents should have sent 'em to Bob Jones. (wicked laughter)[/b]

wicked laughter = something like muahahahaahahaaa

now I call this evolution.

Oh sorry, did I break your concentration? Oh I didn't mean to.
Please.. continue..!!


BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Originally posted by telerion
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]I see you have carefully dodged my main question: did the Theory of Evolution have ethical ramifications?

No. I do not readily see any necessary ethical ramifications of the TOE. It is like Big Bang or Quantum Physics. People use them all the time as support for their ethos, but these ideas stand on ...[text shortened]... ing the young. Their parents should have sent 'em to Bob Jones. (wicked laughter)[/b]

Lol, I always find myself at a distinct disadvantage when debating you. I just can't get myself to take the gloves off with you.

Originally posted by Halitose
Lol, I always find myself at a distinct disadvantage when debating you. I just can't get myself to take the gloves off with you.

Take the gloves off. telerion can take a punch. But, you'll find that he's hard to knock down.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Take the gloves off. telerion can take a punch. But, you'll find that he's hard to knock down.

The problem is he's so darn funny -- it's disarming.

Originally posted by Halitose
The problem is he's so darn funny -- it's disarming.

Killing me softly with love . . . 😳

Originally posted by telerion
Killing me softly with love . . . 😳

it's the power tie and the hat.

Originally posted by Halitose

Let me also quote the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould (who, I don't need to remind you, was an ardent evolutionist):

[i]"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, howeve ...[text shortened]... formulated "punctuated equilibrium", he had to somehow get around the lack of evidence.[/b]

"Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor. Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been led to doubt the fact that evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand." S.J. Gould.

Originally posted by Halitose
Lol, I always find myself at a distinct disadvantage when debating you. I just can't get myself to take the gloves off with you.

Oooooh, now I see! I was wondering well all the ad hom allegations were coming from. When I said "no surprise given the source" up above, I meant the Creationist apologists you parrot. I didn't mean you!

When I read my post again (yes, I am vain), I realized that that bit came off all wrong.

Oh, and when I say "parrot" in this post, I mean it in the verb form. I do not intend to imply that you are a bird that craps on some one's shoulder and makes annoying squawking sounds for stale crackers.

See? I have a glass jaw after all.

Originally posted by Halitose
Did I strike the right chord? Judging from your reaction, my statement should have been in the "religious jokes" thread.

I wouldn't have reacted to your stale propaganda if the post had been signed, for example, dj2becker or RatX, from whom such tripe is expected. The anger came from a sense of betrayal that you could be so criminally dull.

Originally posted by telerion
Oooooh, now I see! I was wondering well all the ad hom allegations were coming from. When I said "no surprise given the source" up above, I meant the Creationist apologists you parrot. I didn't mean you!

When I read my post again (yes, I am vain), I realized that that bit came off all wrong.

Oh, and when I say "parrot" in this post, I mean it in makes annoying squawking sounds for stale crackers.

See? I have a glass jaw after all.

ROTFL. What can I say? You are the master of ad hominem by ambiguous insinuation. You win. 😀

Edit: Wait a minute - glass jaw you say? *Hal swings a haymaker*

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I wouldn't have reacted to your stale propaganda if the post had been signed, for example, dj2becker or RatX, from whom such tripe is expected. The anger came from a sense of betrayal that you could be so criminally dull.

As I admitted, it was a conversation starter. Obviously I got more than I bargained for. Surely we can discuss the (unintended) wrongs of the non-religious, or are the fundy Xtians and suicide bombers the only ones who should face any form of objective scrutiny?