-->
@drafterman
The Modern Synthesis is a scientific theory, my beliefs are not.
Another question for Darwinists
Posts
Total:
72
-->
@janesix
what do you mean?
I have already explained what I mean on another of your threads. I cannot find it. There is no search engine on the forum. And I don't have the time to explain the in's and out's in detail again as I took the time to do so, before.
here you are. post 70
-->
@janesix
I wasn't asking a question about your beliefs.
You are asking a question to other people about "evolution." The evolution you are asking about: are you talking about the scientific theory?
-->
@drafterman
Yes.
-->
@janesix
Ok. So you're asking a question about a scientific theory. Ergo it belongs in the science forum. And you needn't call you people specifically as "Darwinists" nor more than you would call out people that accept gravity as "Einsteinians"
-->
@drafterman
You can ask Bish to put this thread in the science forum, if it is bothering you that much.
I like calling you guys Darwinists. It differentiates you from IDers,Orthogenesists,and theistic evolutionists,all who believe in evolution.
-->
@janesix
I like calling you guys Darwinists.
Ok. Well you should know it's commonly used as a derogatory term so anyone knowledgeable in evolution is less likely to take you seriously or hold your intentions to be honorable. If you care about that kind of thing.
It differentiates you from IDers,Orthogenesists,and theistic evolutionists,all who believe in evolution.
No they don't. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. ID, Orthogenesis, and theistic evolution are religious beliefs.
-->
@drafterman
What would you prefer to be called? Evolutionists? Modern Synthesists? Neo-Darwinists? I can't call you evolutionists, that encompasses all evolutionary beliefs.
-->
@janesix
What would you prefer to be called? Evolutionists? Modern Synthesists? Neo-Darwinists? I can't call you evolutionists, that encompasses all evolutionary beliefs.
Do you have a special name for people who believe in gravity to distinguish them from people that don't? How would you word a question about gravity?
The answer is, you wouldn't. You'd just go onto the science forum and ask the question. So just dispense with the unnecessary labels and just ask the question in the appropriate forum and you'll avoid these kinds of miscommunications.
-->
@drafterman
There is a huge difference. Materialists who believe in Neo-Darwinism and those who don't make up large percentages of the population. There is a real divide. There isn't a real divide between those who believe in gravity and those who don't. You have a few flat Earthers who don't believe in gravity,and that's about it. There is no controversy there.
-->
@janesix
Actuall there kind of is three or more kinds of people in regards to gravity:There isn't a real divide between those who believe in gravity and those who don't.
1} gravity via gravitonic/quanta force ---boson if ever observed-- t hat is mass-attractive ergo pulling-INward force,
2} gravity as pushing-INward force{ ? } if ever observed,
3} gravity as geometric shape of space, ergo not a force,
4} ? other
Darwinst may be considered simple-to-complex evolution only. They do not even consider complex-to-simple evolution. They may consider lateral evolution with no change in complexity.
It may be that there exists cosmic eggs, ---ex black holes-- within an eternally existent, finite, occupied SPACE Universe, that contains the the most complex RNA-DNA coding for humans and all others are derived from that coding. Ive laid out some of the basics for such scenarios.
There was a lady scientist who attempted to recreate what happens with pressures created by metor impact on various chemical molecules found on Eearlier Earth. What suprised her, was that she discovered more complex molecules from less complex molecules, via higher compressive forces.
That was the opposite of what she expected. Black holes are the most extreme pressure we know of in Universe.
Highest pressures = most complex RNA-DNA coding of humans? Again, I have lots of material that all coincide with this scenario.
Even with all of humans mind/intellect abilities they have not created biological life, from where before there was none. This is just a fact.
-->
@mustardness
And then there are those of us who are "Black Hole Deniers".
-->
@janesix
What would you prefer to be called?
People, humans, folks...
We're just people who understand and accept evolution. If you want labels, then use them for folks who don't understand evolution but deny it anyways (Science deniers), or folks who prefer religion over science (Creationists).
-->
@janesix
What would you prefer to be called? Evolutionists? Modern Synthesists? Neo-Darwinists? I can't call you evolutionists, that encompasses all evolutionary beliefs.
Evolution means 'change over time'. Darwinism, orthogeneics and lamarckism are alternative theories for why such change tends to be adaptive.
Creationism and ID are non-evolutionary theories becuase they assert that a species - once created or designed - does not change.
I am an evoutionist because i believe species change overtime and i am a darwinist because i think drawinism best explains adaptation.
-->
@keithprosser
Yes, I agree
-->
@Goldtop
I will use labels when they fit
Thanks
-->
@janesix
I will use labels when they fitThanks
Science deniers, Creationists.
Apparently, so will he.
I guess creationists don't think they are just people, humans, folks...
-->
@ethang5
Apparently, Goldie is a hypocrite.
-->
@ethang5
They would be if they were sane, reasonable, logical and rationale. But they're not, so if they wish to divorce themselves from reality, like you have, for example, they should have special labels distinguishing them from sane people.I guess creationists don't think they are just people, humans, folks...
-->
@janesix
You are wrong. I believe in evolution.
No you don't, as you prove throughout this thread.
-->
@Goldtop
There was no need to validate what Jane said about you. I already knew.
-->
@disgusted
Obviously I do, genius.
-->
@janesix
Can't you read? Poor little thing.
-->
@disgusted
Materialist Darwinists don't own the word "evolution". Things evolve. Thus evolution. Duh.
-->
@janesix
It's not supposed to be anything. You don't start with a preconceived notion and make the evidence for that notion you start with the evidence and allow that to inform your understanding.
-->
@secularmerlin
And do you understand that evolution is compatible with creationism? Jane is correct, things evolve and that has no bearing on atheism or a materialistic worldview. The concept is universal, it has no preference for ideologies. Creation is a process, evolution of forms is a part of the creative process to get where we are currently.
-->
@secularmerlin
You don't start with a preconceived notion and make the evidence for that notion you start with the evidence and allow that to inform your understanding.
Welcome to your world precisely.
-->
@EtrnlVw
I see no reason to think that evolution would make the existence of some god(s) impossible. That has never been my claim. My only claim in regard to god(s) is that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest any.
-->
@secularmerlin
And that is baloney. It is called your opinion. You don't consider all forms of evidence. If you did, you would have never said that.
-->
@EtrnlVw
What evidence is there beyond anecdotal testimony?