Why is the concept of theistic evolution unacceptable to you?
- Thread starter Rav
- Start date
No. At best, what you've disproved is that that particular concept of God.
Whether that concept of yours really matches God - that is unclear.
But if that concept of God is disproved by examining the root cause of religion, then why should anyone seriously consider any concept of God?
Geez, if you're enlightened, what the hell are you doing here then?
superstring01
Moderator
It is not unacceptable to me. In fact, it is perfectly acceptable! I would just ask for there to be a measure of evidence for the "theistic" part before I believe it. Until then, I maintain the default position on all possible things in the universe: not until proven.
For example, I'm open to:
- Pigs with wings
- Aliens from Krelak IV
- Unicorns
- Mensa Member Sarah Palin
- Superstring Theory
- Allah/God/YHWH/Zeus
- Mensa Member Sara . . . wait. Said that already.
- Mensa Member Sara . . . shit. Did it again.
So, yeah, theistic evolution / intelligent design. Sure. Why not. But first provide me with the peer reviewed paper, scientific study demonstrating such a thing. Then we'll talk.
~String
What mouse trap reference?
You do anyway, don't you?
jan.
Actually, Jan, the point was that one can invoke magic at any point to avoid definition in the case of God.
I.e.: "God makes no sense"
Response: "Magic!"
CHALLENGE: AVOIDED
Hey Jan, let's review the first paper at your link together (Kuhn JA. 2012. "Dissecting Darwinism." Baylor Health). What say? We can work through the list as I find the time.
So, to start with, Kuhn appears to deliberately misrepresent Hunter:
Kuhn lavishes great fawning adoration over Hunter:
"Surgeon and biologist extraordinaire"! Darwin relegates mention as some sort of lumpen hanger-on. I think Kuhn's colours may be showing. Having never heard of John Hunter's no-doubt diligent investigations into natural history before now - to say nothing of his foresight of the process of mutagenic speciation I looked him up. Imagine my surprise when both Wiki and the Encyclopedia had this to say:
Ah. In other words, not exactly the kind of philosophical precursor that Dr. Kuhn suggests. Perhaps some other Kuhn-Hunter follower has some contrary evidence. I think Kuhn is overinvolved with selling his own value in the discussion of evolution - a subject, by omission, that he seems to have little background with.
This is why surgeons ought to stay out of evolutionary biology. The vast contrast between MDs (78%) who accept evolution as the basis for speciation and those in the natural sciences who do (99%) is telling. Any comments, Jan?
So, to start with, Kuhn appears to deliberately misrepresent Hunter:
Kuhn lavishes great fawning adoration over Hunter:
"Surgeon and biologist extraordinaire"! Darwin relegates mention as some sort of lumpen hanger-on. I think Kuhn's colours may be showing. Having never heard of John Hunter's no-doubt diligent investigations into natural history before now - to say nothing of his foresight of the process of mutagenic speciation I looked him up. Imagine my surprise when both Wiki and the Encyclopedia had this to say:
Ah. In other words, not exactly the kind of philosophical precursor that Dr. Kuhn suggests. Perhaps some other Kuhn-Hunter follower has some contrary evidence. I think Kuhn is overinvolved with selling his own value in the discussion of evolution - a subject, by omission, that he seems to have little background with.
This is why surgeons ought to stay out of evolutionary biology. The vast contrast between MDs (78%) who accept evolution as the basis for speciation and those in the natural sciences who do (99%) is telling. Any comments, Jan?
Is it that you can't answer the question, or is it that you won't because doing so might make you contradict yourself?
I'm just trying to figure out the purpose behind this evasion. I asked you a question, and you responded with a bullshit.
Does this publication address how the creatures got to the Galapagos? Do you have an opinion on the subject?
Go back and read what I said, and then check whether your criticism still applies.
I did, and it does.
Yazata,
What's ''raw information''?
We can imagine lots of things.
I'm sure you could find out if you tried.
More important (than the fact they were made by humans), is that we can recognise, and understand that they were ''made'', period, regardless of who or what made them.
It doesn't matter.
It only matters to you because you have to discredit the science.
Okay, let's go with this.
So what?
But it's not devastating now.
It kinda look's ill (and I don't mean that in the hip-hop sense).
jan.
What's ''raw information''?
We can imagine lots of things.
I'm sure you could find out if you tried.
More important (than the fact they were made by humans), is that we can recognise, and understand that they were ''made'', period, regardless of who or what made them.
It doesn't matter.
It only matters to you because you have to discredit the science.
Okay, let's go with this.
So what?
But it's not devastating now.
It kinda look's ill (and I don't mean that in the hip-hop sense).
jan.