Objections to Evolution

@newjaninev2 In another thread on evolution I asked you if it was influenced by cultural. I meant, really, the evolution vs creation debate, but left it open to interpretation because I don't see how it couldn't be influenced in that way. In the subsequent video I posted that inspired it Thomas Sowell's observations on black rednecks, the rednecks coming from somewhere in Northern England. The language being the same. Their mistrust of education, love of Jesus, even sexual and social tendencies, the card game Wist? I think it was called. Anyway, the blacks who came from some other part of England or the West Indies or went there did much better. The black rednecks copied the culture from the white rednecks, or crackers, if you will.

Uh . . . . I don't remember what the point was. I'm so happy to have finally been afforded the opportunity to use the cracker colloquialism in a sentence I've gone blank. That inspired this thread. I think. Anyway, I mean either Evolution or Evolution by Natural Selection unless you can give me a good reason for making the distinction in this context. By object I don't mean evidentiary, I mean general objection to the presence of.

For example, I have no objection to evolution. Why would I? It's just what some people believe. I know. You're not supposed to "believe" in evolution. But people do. By believing it to be true. Some might object to it because they don't believe it to be true, but I don't see that as a reason to object to it. I don't believe it to be true but I don't object to it.

@BibleData [quote]evolution vs creation debate[/quote]

What debate?

[quote]Evolution or Evolution by Natural Selection[/quote]

Evolution is the [i]process[/i] and Natural Selection is the [i]mechanism[/i]

Evolution was discussed by the Ancient Greeks... it’s hardly a new idea!

Natural Selection was Darwin’s great contribution.

[quote]general objection to the presence of[/quote]

Such people aren’t objecting to evolution [i]per se...[/i] they’re objecting to anything and everything they find inconvenient or uncomfortable or confronting.

There’s not a lot I, or anyone else, can do to help them with that.

@newjaninev2 [quote]What debate?[/quote]

I specified that quite clearly. You quoted it.

[quote]Evolution is the process and Natural Selection is the mechanism

Evolution was discussed by the Ancient Greeks... it’s hardly a new idea!

Natural Selection was Darwin’s great contribution.[/quote]

And Darwin's contribution evolved into something else as his did from Empedocles, ad infinitum. Whatever it takes.

Objection, remember? You are leaning towards indoctrination in a thread about objection.

[quote]Such people aren’t objecting to evolution per se... they’re objecting to anything and everything they find inconvenient or uncomfortable or confronting.[/quote]

Good! So it's a world view. A class struggle of sorts. The objection, that is.

[quote]There’s not a lot I, or anyone else, can do to help them with that.[/quote]

Exactly! A pointless debate. It isn't constructive it's destructive.

@BibleData [quote]I specified that quite clearly[/quote]

So, please do it again... because there’s no debate between evolution and creationism. They’re different topics, and without equivalence.

Darwin's contribution evolved into something else

Umm, Natural Selection is still Natural Selection... the mechanism that drives evolution.

Would you like me to define it for you?

[quote]a world view[/quote]

What does a world view leading to an objection to evolution have to do with the validity of evolution?

[quote]A pointless debate[/quote]

Again... what debate?

@newjaninev2 Some verses of Lucretius describe what we would call evolution by natural selection. Darwin is the one who made rigorous observations and came up with a detailed description.

@LeopoldBloom Darwin's observations were birds have different beaks? Do you think Darwin objected to evolution? It seems as if he had some objections.

@newjaninev2 [quote]Darwin's contribution evolved into something else

Umm, Natural Selection is still Natural Selection... the mechanism that drives evolution.

Would you like me to define it for you?[/quote]

You're like a hungry growing puppy. Here's a bone.

https://similarworlds.com/evolution/4550191-All-about-natural-selection-and-change-in-the

@BibleData Darwin observed different beaks in finches and asked [i]why.[/i]

After 20 years of such observations he finally found an explanation

@BibleData If I’m hungry, it’s because you’re not offering anything.

Nothing.

You slide onto the site with vague posts that conceal your real intent and obfuscate your own opinions and assumptions, and then you waste everyone’s time by weaving and hiding and giggling and offering nothing but turgid prose about nothing in particular.

When cornered, you run away to one of the other posts you always have going at the same time to serve as boltholes, and within each post you maintain diverse threads so that you can throw off anyone pursuing you who comes too close for comfort.

As a last resort, you suddenly become too busy to respond.

It’s juvenile and tedious.

So try offering something.

Honesty would be a good start.

@newjaninev2 I gave you your own fucking thread so you could stop fucking up mine, what are you whining about? You just want to indoctrinate. Why don't you just get your mad scientist ice pick out and give me a lobotomy? You don't even have the sense or honesty to see beyond your propaganda. It's all bullshit. Evolution and creationism as we know it is bullshit. There's something else to it. I can't find out what that is by listening to the priests of either school. It's just nonsense.

You want to put that away and we can discuss - [b]seriously[/b] - what all of it is [b]really[/b] about.

@BibleData Ah, [i]there[/i] you are!

@BibleData Do you realise that you’re [i]still[/i] clinging to your false equivalence between evolution and creationism?

What does one have to do with the other?

Why do you keep yoking them together?

@newjaninev2 I'm asking you why they are yoked together.

@newjaninev2 I've been here all along. From day one.

@BibleData They’re not... except that you keep using them as some sort of couplet.

One uses evidence to detail how life has developed since abiogenesis and the mechanism by which that came about, hereby providing a complete, coherent, and consistent explanation of that evidence.

The other invokes magic.

@newjaninev2 So you object to the evolution because it isn't magic?

@BibleData I don’t object to evolution at all.

However, I do object to, and immediately ignore, anything that employs magic as a pseudo-explanation. Such nonsense tries to explain everything away, so it explains nothing (not even itself).

Nothing whatsoever to do with science.

@newjaninev2 Can science explain magic?

@BibleData Science would seek to explain the [i]evidence[/i] for magic.

Do you have any?

@newjaninev2 Evidence of magic? David Blaine, James Randi. Definition of magic: "the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." Most magic is illusion, deception. The witches and fortune tellers condemned to death by the Bible, but magic can also be supernatural. If it's simply fraudulent, as most often, especially nowadays, it's simply that. Fake. A con. But if there is any real supernatural aspect to it it is likely demonic. The witch of En-dor, for example, or fortune teller Paul caused so much controversy with by casting out the demons of the young girl who local businesses relied upon for their guidance.

Ghosts for example, aren't the spirits or souls of the deceased, they are demons pretending to be. Like people often do with God, they can also do with the power of magic. They think it's true and useful when it's really just a confidence trick. The power of the imagination.

But God, in the Bible, can also perform similar illusions. The contest between Moses and the Pharaoh's priests, for example, or Jesus's wounds for doubting Thomas. These "signs" can be for instruction, a demonstration of power, for those who have little faith.

@BibleData So ‘explaining' the natural world by using illusion and deception is OK, is it?

A fake, a con... but not the stuff you choose to believe.

That’s not fake. That’s not a con. That stuff is real, huh?

[quote]who have little faith[/quote]

Faith is merely pretending to know something that you do not actually know.

So you’re suggesting that the best way to sell the deception is by using pretence.

Seriously?

@newjaninev2 [quote]So ‘explaining' the natural world by using illusion and deception is OK, is it?[/quote]

Jesus. He came to sacrifice his body, blood. Soul for soul. Blood for blood. Life for life. He was created in the spiritual heavens much earlier than the earth was created. In fact, he created the spiritual heavens, the physical heavens, the earth and man. Then he came down in various forms as a representative of God. Eventually being born and living as a man briefly. He was killed. Other spirit beings took his body away. When he appeared to Thomas it wasn't in his body he previously had as Jesus. Just a likeness. He had already sacrificed that. So, Thomas needed a sign. Jesus gave him one. Was Jesus not who he said he was? Was he not killed? He was. But Thomas couldn't understand. Some people just can't believe until they see it with their own eyes. You ever met anyone like that?

You don't believe that? Cool. No problem. But unless you are completely arrogant and pathologically stupid you can relate when I say, I don't believe you.

@BibleData How do you get from my comment that Darwin objected to evolution? He elucidated the mechanism, FFS.

If you go to France, you will see statues of Lamarcke, the "father of evolution." Except Lamarcke was wrong as he assumed acquired characteristics could be inherited. Darwin proposed a model of evolution that with some tweaks (like phyletic gradualism or punctuated equilibrium) still applies today.

One thing I took away from reading Darwin was how he knew characteristics were inherited, he just didn't know how this worked. One puzzling thing for him was how a trait could skip a generation. Gregor Mendel's work in genetics was still in the future. One strength of Darwin's theory was how it fit perfectly into a completely new system once that system was discovered.

Also, mythology isn't science. Your Jesus theory is unfalsifiable, therefore it's not a scientific theory. It's mythology, which refers to legends of origins.

@BibleData [quote]I don't believe you[/quote]

You’re not required to believe me (and I’d be distressed if you did)

You’re required to account for the evidence.

@newjaninev2 I am not required to account for any evidence but that which I myself accept, and that only to myself and God. Same as you or anyone else. The rest of it is just talk. The only thing I can say is that nothing starts with n and ends with g.