Feeding Frenzy

[Guest 2smart4u]

Not only that, but if the theory is so wrong, why does it work so well, and why is it accepted and applied all over the world? These are not mere hypothetical musings, they are practical applications in biology and medicine.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Birds can grow longer beaks over the centuries, worms can grow legs, etc., that's evolution. The eye is the best example of I.D. that cannot be explained away by Daffy Darwiniacs. What I find amusing is the way the Darwiniacs ignore this, thinking I will stop posting it.

[Guest Steve_C]

Birds can grow longer beaks over the centuries, worms can grow legs, etc., that's evolution.  The eye is the best example of I.D. that cannot be explained away by Daffy Darwiniacs. What I find amusing is the way the Darwiniacs ignore this, thinking I will stop posting it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please, do educate us on how the eye couldn't be arrived at through evolution?

And please note that in biology there are many different types of eyes and eye structures.

Some think that Squid and Octopus have superior vision to humans.

So please, do enlighten us. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

[Guest Guest]

. What I find amusing is the way the Darwiniacs ignore this, thinking I will stop posting it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most would figure you can't have an attention span much longer than a five year old's.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Please, do educate us on how the eye couldn't be arrived at through evolution?

And please note that in biology there are many different types of eyes and eye structures.

Some think that Squid and Octopus have superior vision to humans.

So please, do enlighten us. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha !! I knew it !! You can't offer an explanation so you want me to explain "HOW IT COULDN'T HAVE EVOLVED" !! You just blew yourself out of the water. (stick with birds growing longer beaks).

[Guest Guest]

A thought experiment:

Replace "under God" with "under goddess". It doesn't specify which goddess. Heck, it isn't even capitalized, so unlike "under God", it doesn't even imply a goddess who's name is "Goddess". Must be ok then, right?

The problem, of course, (as you mentioned later in your post) is that this would exclude some religions while paying tribute to others. The only real difference between "under God" and "under goddess" is the size of the included and excluded groups. Does something that is wrong for a minority to do to a majority become right when a majority does it to a minority?

By the way, Buddhism has no gods. So it isn't just the areligious who are excluded by "under God".

No sensible person will really believe that "under God" was ever intended to refer to any gods other than the christian one. The pretense that it is inclusive of muslims, hindus, etc., is just that: a pretense.

Good devil's advocacy, by the way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I think the goddess thing is a stretch (and I am VERY surprised that no one jumped on DeTocqueville "tyranny of the majority" argument) but I think you're making a valid point.

Thanks for the correction on Buddhism and, I believe, that certain Hinduism sects are poly-theist (as I apologize to my Indian friends).

As to DeTocqueville, he generally defines Tyranny of the Majority as a phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics. Tocqueville argues that there is little toleration of difference of opinion in democratic societies. Unlike in aristocratic societies, public opinion is seen as authentic rather than ascribed, and therefore has a great deal more moral force.

He stated "I know of no country in which, speaking generally, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America [...] As long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety "

And he further said, “The sovereign can no longer say, “You shall think as I do on pain of death”: but he says, “You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien along your people. You may retain your civil rights, buy they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their suffrages; and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem. You will remain among men, but you like an impure being; and those who are mostly persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn."

From reading him, I also get the sense that he believes that America will (and did) prosper as a democracy because of its collective fortitude. Other democracies that attempted to be more open to independent thought failed, so de Tocqueville thought it was this phenomenon that was the differentiating factor.

Democracy in America from de Tocqueville's visits of America circa 1831.

Boy, am I glad that times sure have changed.

[Guest Guest]

You have to be reiligious to believe that we didn't evolve. That we were *poofed* into existence.

Do people who deny the reality of evolution believe in the story of Adam and Eve as fact? The Ark?

And if they do... where's the evidence?

Evolution is proven, it is a fact.

History teachers should not be abusing children by filling their heads with uninformed religously warped views of scientific fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure that evolution is "proven" and is a fact. That's falling into the same trap as the theists who believe that creationism is necessarily a fact. I believe that evolution is a strong theory with very compelling evidence. That being said, we still don't have a clue about how and why we got here, and I suspect that we never will. Still, it shouldn't preclude us from trying to advance our knowledge.

[Guest WilliamK]

I love to see a dishonest/fallacious argument just completely destroyed like this. Nice work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That one was mine. I forgot to type in my name (again). Glad you enjoyed it.

[Guest Paul]

You have to be reiligious to believe that we didn't evolve. That we were *poofed* into existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I draw a distinction between religion and theology. The word religion comes from the Latin words re (to look upon all things) and ligare (to bind together, like a ligament does). In other words, religion is humanity's attempt to take all things into account and bring it all together into a coherent whole. When a theology demands that people ignore reality, it is the antithesis of religion.

[Guest Paul]

Please, do educate us on how the eye couldn't be arrived at through evolution?

And please note that in biology there are many different types of eyes and eye structures.

Some think that Squid and Octopus have superior vision to humans.

So please, do enlighten us. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For one excellent explanation of the evolutionary development of the eye, see Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 1123-34, along with his cited works. Of course, you'll have to read the book and the other cited publications. Some people actually do that.

[Guest Paul]

I'm not sure that evolution is "proven" and is a fact.  That's falling into the same trap as the theists who believe that creationism is necessarily a fact.  I believe that evolution is a strong theory with very compelling evidence.  That being said, we still don't have a clue about how and why we got here, and I suspect that we never will.  Still, it shouldn't preclude us from trying to advance our knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentences, reading them to refer to an ultimate cause or beginning.

However, evolution is thoroughly proven, and is being used and applied in medicine. I wouldn't be surprised if you have received medical treatments that are result from applications of evolutionary theory. In fact, unless you are exceptionally healthy, I'd be surprised if you haven't.

In science, no proof is absolute. However, that does not mean that evolution should be singled out or qualified as a less reliable science than, say, Newton's theory of gravity (which by the way turned out to be wrong). The point here is that the evidence supporting evolutionary theory is overwhelming, and the theory is being applied in ways that benefit us in our everyday lives. Therefore, unless someone comes up with a better explanation that replaces evolutionary theory, we cannot afford not teaching it to our young people. Modern biology cannot even be understood without understanding evolution --- that is the consensus among biologists today.

So the argument that proponents of evolutionary theory fall into the same trap as creationists cannot be made as a blanket statement. Proof is a relative term in science and in law, and what is accepted as a fact is essentially dependent on what is considered proof. The question is better resolved by asking how scientists think about these issues, and comparing and contrasting that with how theologians think about them --- and of course some theologians are more respectful of science than others. So it's more complicated than you suggest, but in practical terms, evolution is proved, and it is a fact. That's not a dogmatic statement, but a statement about the most up-to-date state of affairs in science. People who don't understand science won't even understand the statement. Similarly, there are theologians who do not assert their theologies as ultimate truth, but unfortunately (in my view), many do.

In an earlier post in another topic (science and religion I think), I cited several excellent books on evolutionary theory. It is a complicated science, which brilliant people spend their lives trying to understand. It has advanced by light years in my lifetime. However, the fundamentals of evolution can be understood by reading some of the more generalized books, which I listed in the first grouping. Ernest Mayr's book entitled What Evolution Is, is one example.

[Calybos]

For one excellent explanation of the evolutionary development of the eye, see Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 1123-34, along with his cited works. Of course, you'll have to read the book and the other cited publications. Some people actually do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"2smart" is doing the fundie mindset proud: ignore the evidence, deny the facts, and then insist no one has been able to provide either in response to his "challenge."

His question about the eye's evolution has already been answered several times, with copious evidence. He chooses not to see it. Apparently some of us have eyes more evolved than his....

[Guest 2smart4u]

For one excellent explanation of the evolutionary development of the eye, see Stephen Jay Gould's magnum opus The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, pp. 1123-34, along with his cited works. Of course, you'll have to read the book and the other cited publications. Some people actually do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Stephen Jay Gould is a committed Darwiniac and an atheist. I've read one of his books, "Wonderful Life", it was interesting but somewhat muddled. Of course he has a theory on the evolution of the eye, if he didn't, evolution goes out the window along with all his many books.

[Guest 2smart4u]

"2smart" is doing the fundie mindset proud: ignore the evidence, deny the facts, and then insist no one has been able to provide either in response to his "challenge."

His question about the eye's evolution has already been answered several times, with copious evidence. He chooses not to see it. Apparently some of us have eyes more evolved than his....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"answered several times" ?? "copious evidence" ?? I must have missed all that copious evidence. Run it by me again.

[Guest Steve_C]

I'm not sure that evolution is "proven" and is a fact.  That's falling into the same trap as the theists who believe that creationism is necessarily a fact.  I believe that evolution is a strong theory with very compelling evidence.  That being said, we still don't have a clue about how and why we got here, and I suspect that we never will.  Still, it shouldn't preclude us from trying to advance our knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In fact it is proven and is fact. It's not a belief.

There is no other explanation other than those based on faith.

As for the origins of life, of course that's one of the toughest questions to solve because it occured billions of years ago on in an environment completely different from ours and even if a good idea of what might of happened it would be very difficult to reproduce in a lab.

But it's obvious that it happened because we are here.

As for 2Smart to Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species. The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago. The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race". Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive. Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

Was that so hard?

The funny thing is that eyes are so prevalent that it POINTS TO THE FACT THAT ALL LIFE HAS A COMMON ANCESTOR!!! It's the BEST example that points to adaptation by natural selection. Predators' eyes evolved so they would be better hunters and prey's eyes developed as to evade getting caught.

2Smart... you can remove your foot from the mouth now.

[Guest Guest]

Sure, but keeping "under God" in is unfair to non-theistic religions/agnoticism/atheism/etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And take it out is unfair to those who believe in God.

[Guest Guest]

Ha !!  I knew it !!  You can't offer an explanation so you want me to explain "HOW IT COULDN'T HAVE EVOLVED" !!  You just blew yourself out of the water. (stick with birds growing longer beaks).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's because you can't explain or don't know how to.

[Guest Paul]

And take it out is unfair to those who believe in God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No it isn't. It's essential to the freedom of everyone to worship as they see fit without government interference. Our country did just fine for many years without "under God" in the pledge, until the witch-hunter Joseph McCarthy, one of the most divisive politicians in our history, had it added in the 1950s'. Doesn't that history tell you anything? How ironic it is that this controversy started in a US history class.

I say again: Many nations have been ripped apart and even destroyed by religious conflict, but there is not one historical example of any nation being harmed by allowing all its people to worship freely as they see fit, the government staying out of it.

I ask again: Why isn't this the best rule?

The fact that none of you even tries to answer this question is the answer.

[Guest Steve_C]

Stephen Jay Gould is a committed Darwiniac and an atheist. I've read one of his books, "Wonderful Life", it was interesting but somewhat muddled.  Of course he has a theory on the evolution of the eye, if he didn't, evolution goes out the window along with all his many books.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you have any idea what a complete parody you represent?

Atheists couldn't write a better caricature of a creationist/IDist.

You have no clue what science does, what it is, or what the method is all about.

Because the science doesn't agree with your little notion of what the bible says you refuse to accept it.

If someone could show evidence of a god/designer science would have to accept it... that's what it does. It tests, compares and evaluates itself constantly.

Religious dogma doesn't. It bends to the will of society and changes it's stance, when it gets out of step and loses membership, but the dogma doesn't change. To say god did it, or a "designer" did it, is to stop asking the questions that science seeks to answer.

You want to say god did it... scientists just ask "oh really? how? and who did god?"

[Strife767]

Birds can grow longer beaks over the centuries, worms can grow legs, etc., that's evolution.  The eye is the best example of I.D. that cannot be explained away by Daffy Darwiniacs. What I find amusing is the way the Darwiniacs ignore this, thinking I will stop posting it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ignore?

LOL!

YOU willfully _ignored_ the evidence I provided to you, and the fact that even the majority of creationists have abandoned this argument (Answers in Genesis includes it in their "arguments we believe creationists should NOT use," if I remember correctly). Remember this post?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40572

Don't forget these:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40641

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40643

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40646

Not all of us have that short an attention span. You have miserably failed at this argument, and we all know it. Not only can you not prove that a "designer" created the human eye in its present state, but you can't even refute the accepted path of evolution that is accepted for the development of our eyes--the best you can do is a fallacious argument of incredulity, lol.

Feel free to try again, but I warn you in advance--just about every creationist argument has long ago been completely destroyed. Oh well--if you bring ridicule on yourself, it's not my problem. :P

[Strife767]

Ha !!  I knew it !!  You can't offer an explanation

Wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html

I see you haven't refuted any of this yet.

[Strife767]

I'm not sure that evolution is "proven" and is a fact.

This should clear it up for you. Evolution is a theory and a fact, scientifically speaking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

That's falling into the same trap as the theists who believe that creationism is necessarily a fact.

Not at all--I'll explain below.

I believe that evolution is a strong theory with very compelling evidence.  That being said, we still don't have a clue about how and why we got here, and I suspect that we never will.

Ah, but you do realize that this is a common misconception about the theory of evolution, don't you? Evolution explains how life progresses after it starts--it does not explain nor does it attempt to explain how life began. The idea of life coming from non-life would be covered by the relatively new science, abiogenesis, not by the theory of evolution.

The reason fundies hate the theory of evolution is because their beliefs dictate not only an origin, but a lack of progression. That's the thing they don't like about evolution--their beliefs say that all the different "kinds" (goooood luck getting ANYONE to give you a real, workable definition of what entails a Biblical "kind"--fundies always avoid that question because the second they give a definition, it will be destroyed outright. *chuckles*) poofed into existence at once, and that species never evolved into new species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest Guest]

And take it out is unfair to those who believe in God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If it's not there and there's no mention of one God, many Gods, or no God then it's fair to everyone regardless of their beliefs.

[Guest Guest]

In fact it is proven and is fact. It's not a belief.

There is no other explanation other than those based on faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve - I see no reason to overstate this (other than 2Smart4U p*ssed you off). There is no other scientific-based explanation ... RIGHT NOW ... but who knows what science will turn up in the centuries to come. Without having to go through all of the "facts" that have been disproven through the centuries, let it be enough to say that arrogance has no place in science, and insisting that ANYTHING is a fact that is above reproach flies in the face of the scientific method.

[Guest 2smart4u]

This should clear it up for you. Evolution is a theory and a fact, scientifically speaking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Not at all--I'll explain below.

Ah, but you do realize that this is a common misconception about the theory of evolution, don't you? Evolution explains how life progresses after it starts--it does not explain nor does it attempt to explain how life began. The idea of life coming from non-life would be covered by the relatively new science, abiogenesis, not by the theory of evolution.

The reason fundies hate the theory of evolution is because their beliefs dictate not only an origin, but a lack of progression. That's the thing they don't like about evolution--their beliefs say that all the different "kinds" (goooood luck getting ANYONE to give you a real, workable definition of what entails a Biblical "kind"--fundies always avoid that question because the second they give a definition, it will be destroyed outright. *chuckles*) poofed into existence at once, and that species never evolved into new species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You present a Darwiniac author as absolute proof supporting Darwinism. That wouldn't stand up in a courtroom and it doesn't stand up here.

[Guest Guest]

This should clear it up for you. Evolution is a theory and a fact, scientifically speaking.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Not at all--I'll explain below.

Ah, but you do realize that this is a common misconception about the theory of evolution, don't you? Evolution explains how life progresses after it starts--it does not explain nor does it attempt to explain how life began. The idea of life coming from non-life would be covered by the relatively new science, abiogenesis, not by the theory of evolution.

The reason fundies hate the theory of evolution is because their beliefs dictate not only an origin, but a lack of progression. That's the thing they don't like about evolution--their beliefs say that all the different "kinds" (goooood luck getting ANYONE to give you a real, workable definition of what entails a Biblical "kind"--fundies always avoid that question because the second they give a definition, it will be destroyed outright. *chuckles*) poofed into existence at once, and that species never evolved into new species.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gotcha - but I still hate using the term "fact". To say that it is something that we accept as fact is one thing ... however, to flat-out say something is fact is to presuppose that we absolutely know it to be true. It's semantics, I know, but it's the flexibility and willingness to learn and grow that separates us from you know who.