Darwin's Theory is False
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
1) no, Darwins theory is not flawed in any way. There are however people who refuse to face facts or who believe that their religion is factual so then science must be wrong.Woody said:Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up. I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity. The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.
http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm
http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
The author of the first two technical papers is waiting for someone to provide a satisfactory definition of "natural selection." He has been waiting years for someone to accomplish this.
You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution (just because I do not agree with you about it). In my opinion it's just a matter of "your faith" in Darwinism.
So have a happy hereafter.
2) Any chance the author of the first two "technical" papers could get them peer reviewed? Don't hold your breath. these papers are as "technical" as the writings of zecharia sitchin. Bogus as can be.
Woody said:
Yes it is, it doesn't do a good job of modeling what the evidence says... basically it's outdated. The present model (theory of evolution) is leaps and bounds better. It's no longer about survival of the fittest... it's about survival of the most adaptable.
Woody said:
Assuming this is the ol' heaven / hell reference... there is no evidence to suggest 'souls', 'god', 'heaven', 'hell', etc. exist.
Woody said:
Sure it has. Environmental pressures change. Reproduction results in variation. Variations that best fit the pressures are more likely to end up reproducing. It's a continuous process and all life on the planet is merely a state in that process.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Crunchy Cat,
IIRC, Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest". It's not field of study, but I don't believe that Darwin's theory of natural selection has been seriously challenged.
IIRC, Darwin never used the term "survival of the fittest". It's not field of study, but I don't believe that Darwin's theory of natural selection has been seriously challenged.
snake river rufus said:
That's correct. He never did... it's a buzzword for natural selection... doesn't quite do it justice. Darwin's theory, at least from what I remember in my earlier college class in evolution, has 'evolved' quite a bit
.My assertion is that Darwin's original theory has simply been superceded... happens with most theories as they improve.
c7ityi_ said:
Nothing, it is an intrinsic quality of life (as we know it).
woody,
Taken from the first reference in the first few sentences -
So does faith have any real value or not? If you say evolution is false because it must be believed on faith then we should equally argue that God must be false and can't exist because that must be believed on faith as well.
Taken from the first reference in the first few sentences -
Shouldn't this suggest to the Christian that evolution must be true if it must be believed on faith? Since this is exactly the claimed powerful basis that God exists because Christians have such faith.
So does faith have any real value or not? If you say evolution is false because it must be believed on faith then we should equally argue that God must be false and can't exist because that must be believed on faith as well.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
I still rely on evidenceBowser said:
Forget "Darwin's" theory of evolution. Lets see you or the author of the "technical" papers point out the flaws in the facts of evolution as they exist in modern sciences. Creationist nutters always like to pick on 19th century science.
Even so, Darwin was never wrong except he couldn't figure out the mechanism of inheritance.
From the first link:
what is wrong with it?
Take a quote from darwin, substitute it with something else at leasure. Then dispute what you have substituted.
So they arrive at the question: What is the cause of their differences? A tautology can't explain that according to them.
But what did darwin say?
"----I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection-----".
Darwin didn't refer to elephant survivors surviving. He referred to elephants that have a slight variation that gives them an advantage in life have a higher chance of having progeny or more progeny than those elephants in a population that don't have this variation. The selective advantage of having an advantagous variation is called natural selection. That is how the process of evolution can change form.
Anyone who is a critical reader can see how the theory of evolution is raped here. Only the truly gullible cannot. And only the gullible rely on faith.
From the first link:
what is wrong with it?
Take a quote from darwin, substitute it with something else at leasure. Then dispute what you have substituted.
So they arrive at the question: What is the cause of their differences? A tautology can't explain that according to them.
But what did darwin say?
"----I have called this principle, by which each slight variation(a), if useful, is preserved, by the term of natural selection-----".
Darwin didn't refer to elephant survivors surviving. He referred to elephants that have a slight variation that gives them an advantage in life have a higher chance of having progeny or more progeny than those elephants in a population that don't have this variation. The selective advantage of having an advantagous variation is called natural selection. That is how the process of evolution can change form.
Anyone who is a critical reader can see how the theory of evolution is raped here. Only the truly gullible cannot. And only the gullible rely on faith.
S/G says: There are many causes of evolution: mutation, genetic drift, selection pressures, the local environment and such. In a sense, life IS eternal. It started several billion years ago, and nothing has killed it yet.
Woody says: These are not causes of evolution. The white papers addresses these. They can perhaps be involved in the process of evolution but they themselves are not causes, and most of are merely statements of physical condition.
For example, all things vary -- no two grains of sand are exactly alike -- that is a statement of physical condition -- it doesn't cause anything. So naturally by conclusion, all life forms vary from generation to generation -- there is no new information that qualifies the cause of evolution.
When you say "selective pressures" I assume you are speaking of "natural selection" which is a tautology just like "survival of the fittest." They are both logical fallicies because they are self-defining. What for example defines "fitness?" Survival of the fittest becomes survival of the survivors, and presents no qualifying information. Again, the technical papers address these and others.
In conclusion, the "cause" of evolution has not been discovered. That does not mean evolution can't happen, but that it is a historical state of nature without a known cause.
Woody says: These are not causes of evolution. The white papers addresses these. They can perhaps be involved in the process of evolution but they themselves are not causes, and most of are merely statements of physical condition.
For example, all things vary -- no two grains of sand are exactly alike -- that is a statement of physical condition -- it doesn't cause anything. So naturally by conclusion, all life forms vary from generation to generation -- there is no new information that qualifies the cause of evolution.
When you say "selective pressures" I assume you are speaking of "natural selection" which is a tautology just like "survival of the fittest." They are both logical fallicies because they are self-defining. What for example defines "fitness?" Survival of the fittest becomes survival of the survivors, and presents no qualifying information. Again, the technical papers address these and others.
In conclusion, the "cause" of evolution has not been discovered. That does not mean evolution can't happen, but that it is a historical state of nature without a known cause.
I'm puzzled as to the secondary topic here. Is it really your contention that people who believe in all the evidence for evolution, and can see that the form of natural selection is not only the explanation for biological diversity, but is inherently the inevitable result from living, reproducing, and dying - are all automatically condemned to hell? People who follow the theory of evolution, not because it denies God but simply because all the evidence and a modicum of rational thinking supports it, are all damned for eternity? Are you saying that God and Jesus's principle condition for entry into the Book of Life is "the soul must believe every word of Genesis as literal, especially the King James Version"? If I believed in God, and that was how He thought, I would not worship him. All I can hope for you is, Good luck spending eternity with that fucker.Woody said:Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up. I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity. The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.
http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm
http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest
The author of the first two technical papers is waiting for someone to provide a satisfactory definition of "natural selection." He has been waiting years for someone to accomplish this.
You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution (just because I do not agree with you about it). In my opinion it's just a matter of "your faith" in Darwinism.
So have a happy hereafter.
Last edited:
Strawman fallacy.Woody said:
You say "natural selection" is a tautology like "survival of the fittest" and then go on to explain why "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.
But you have NOT explained why "natural selection" is a tautology.
This is a poor debating tactic generally used by those that (a) aren't used to debating, (b) don't really know what they're actually going on about, and (c) know that they are struggling for a logical argument.
Hah, this is so ironic.
In his 15th point he goes into great detail about how science studies that which can ultimately be determined by humanity's "five senses" (we have considerably more than five senses, in fact, but we know this guy is fairly outdated in his scientific education), and then bemoans the fact that "Creationism is ruled out".
Congratulations to this person for having defined science so well and so completely. You see, he doesn't recognise the problem is that he has written a so-called "scientific paper" calling Darwinian Evolution into question, whereas it is he who is in fact the "stalking horse", promoting religion as an "explanation" in an area which it is unsuitable, for the very reasons he has stated. Oh, boo hoo, science is restricted to stuff we can actually see for ourselves and which consequently we can all agree on. That's how it works! If science did not impose that restriction, none of it would work!