Design or Non-Design, finally we know, Darwin's Doubt

by QC 371 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Captain Obvious

  Well said, jgnat. The title and OP of this thread, as well as every post by the OP have been dripping with arrogance.. The worst kind of arrogance. I'm glad the OP didn't retreat into the realm of "warm fuzzy feelings" or "Christ this and that." He outright challenged a very established and proven scientific system saying we need to "get current" and read this silly book written by a fool. It is full of the same garbage pseudo science creationist books have always had. Not a single rational argument among them. So far, I don't see the scientific community in an uproar, rewriting textbooks and throwing away decades worth of research all because of under qualified preacher wrote a book.

  The OP then goes on to ignore all of the well written rebuttals to his nonsense, and cut and paste more of this garbage. You see, this thread would have been a big eye opener for me when I was waking up. Even if it didn't make me disbelieve the bible, it would have made me dig deeper to find the truth. It is for this reason that anyone posts on this thread still at all.
• 

  cofty

  A theist can only love science by making certain their superstitions and their rational beliefs never meet.

  Keep them safely apart in separate compartments in your mind. If they cross paths it will all end in tears.
• 

  tec

  It is not arrogance to demand science-level evidence on a thread challenging a scientific concept.

  Of course it isn't. And I know that this thread is a theist bringing to discussion a scientific matter, to show that God is true because evolution is wrong. (unless I misunderstood the point, in which case I apologize to the OP)

  I disagree with even the premise of that. Evolution does not belong to atheism. It "belongs" to science, and that 'belongs' to anyone. Evolution is not against God. Those who draw conclusions from evolution about God (from both sides)... are the ones using evolution... to make a statement about God.

  But again, evolution is merely a process, and one that we do not know everything about.

  I couldn't agree more with what you say, as I don't think we are really in disagreement.

  Okay.

  I do have to disagree regarding discussions on faith though... because atheists do not stay out of them; not at all. There are always some who come on to make a quip or argue against the existance of God. Speaking for myself, I don't find this to be a problem. I would never say stay out of this conversation to you... or even be annoyed if you wanted to contribute to the topic being discussed. You would be welcome (or perhaps ignored if all you came on to do was to slam theists without contributing to what was being discussed). Of course, if you do not want to read or comment, then by all means. But if you do though, then you are welcome.

  Every thing. If I can't prove it or support it at a very high level by empirical data or scientific observation/study, I discard it.

  It is absolutely your right to do so, and I respect it. For me, I understand that there are many things that are true but these simply cannot be proven in scientific observation... yet. But they are known and heard by other means, such as the Spirit, and so I don't discard something from the Spirit just because science has not also said it... yet. I don't expect you to accept that. Just telling you what I do (and some others), as you told me what you do (and some others).

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  cofty

  To claim there is such a thing as "spirit" is an extraordinary claim. Voices in your head do not qualify as evidence.

  To speak about scientific evidence and subjective feelings in the same context is intellectually dishonest.
• 

  QC

  Favorable Reviews, 4.2 out of 5 Customer Reviews Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design

  308 Reviews 5 star: (226) 4 star: (21) 3 star: (4) 2 star: (5) 1 star: (52)

  Average Customer Review 4.2 out of 5 stars (308 customer reviews) 4.2 out of 5

  Folks are awakening!
• 

  DJS

  Let's see QC, you started this post and now you wait a week after the last post to have a final say. Is that it? I followed the conversation and couldn't/wouldn't in a thousand years arrive at your conclusions. So the Amazon rating is the trump card in this argument? I'm really unsure of what it is you are trying to state.

  And just to what are those taking the Amazon poll awakening? The 4.2 out of 5 who would be attracted to this book are likely the choir or the amen corner They probably didn't need awakened; it just reinforced a belief, which is why you likely made this weak post a week after the real discussion was completed.

  It is also clear that you didn't really read any of the dialogue or arguments as to why this isn't science. I will make a note to ignore all future posts from you an others (i.e. Rose) who try to proselytize and who completely ignore facts.
• 

  bohm

  QC: Can you show one scientist who is an expert in the cambrian periode of any reputation who has given the book a positive review?

  In the news, Darwins Doubt also got itself reviewed in Science:

  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1344.1.full

  I have never seen a book get such a poor review in science before!

  extracts are here:

  http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/famous-paleobiologist-savages-stephen-meyers-id-book/
• 

  bohm

  QC: Funny thing, you know nothing about the relevant science, you properly havent read the book and all experts who have bothered to review it is basically saying its shit. Yet you think this should somehow convince the rest of us...
• 

  DJS

  QC,

  And to see how silly your premise statement that people are finally awakening, I have included 2 year old gallup data about the beliefs of Americans regarding evolution. It took me all of 5 minutes to find this; maybe if you actually thought about what it is you are trying to prove and then provide proof of it we wouldn't be so harsh. So again, if the theists/creationists are in the majority (by a lot), what point are you trying to make about 'awakening?"

  To quote 2 famous 20th Century philosophers (Simon and Garfunkel): "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Now go away QC and take a research class on how to academically and objectively research a topic to support your defniitive statements (which should be few and far between in ANY analytical or academic paper anyway, which is why scientists use words like "suggest" when they discuss the results of SCIENTIFIC observations) BEFORE you make definiitive statements about it. I'm an ex college prof and taught research classes in addiiton to lots of other courses. I red-lined everything students wrote that wasn't supported by the best empirical academic data they could find. It is an opinion, and opinions have no real place in serious debate, unless you qualify it as your opinion (which kinda sorta indicates that you are open to change your mind). You of course, aren't

  From a 2012 Gallup Poll:

  Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention. As the graph below shows, the percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years. The percent of Americans who believe in evolution has also increased by 6 percent over the last 30 years while the percent of Americans who believe in theistic evolution has decreased by 6 percent over the same time period.

  

  Regular church attendance is strongly positively correlated with believing in creationism, and negatively correlated with believing in theistic evolution and evolution. Among those who attend church weekly, two-thirds believe in creationism, 25 percent believe in theistic evolution and a mere 3 percent believe in evolution.
• 

  QC

  Hi DJS

  you wait a week after the last post to have a final say

  Schedule keeps me away from JWN, it's nothing personal with you.

  This thread is mapping the new (recent 2013) paradigm of peer-reviews science that's challenging Darwinism. It's similar to when the "Steady State theory" (eternal cosmos) paradigm fell to the Big Bang origin of the universe reality. Still today the “static” universe lobby is trying to keep "Steady State" theory alive with the "multiverse theory" (infinity of universes). This lobby of atheist is terrified of their worst fear (averse to a cause-and-effect Creator) which is implicit with any system having a beginning.

  So I’m simply current, not interested in going round and round with ideas that are clearly inept, therefore false (Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, abiogenesis, etc.).