Darwin's frequent bouts of illness seems at least in part, to have been triggered by stress over the implications of his ideas. He was no bold critic of belief in the way Huxley was.
Posts by cofty
-
41How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Brilliant! Thank you TD.
I have been reading 17th and 18th century documents recently as part of local history research. It takes a while to get your eye in.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Yes Earnest I am certain you are correct about Emma. It was not until Alfred Russel Wallace sent him a letter in which he laid out almost identical ideas about Natural Selection that Darwin decided to publish his proposed work in parts beginning with Origins.
Emma was a conventional English Christian with no interest at all in science. She bore ten children because Darwin refused to use contraception, thinking it his duty to produce as many middle-class Englishmen as possible!
The quote is interesting. Of course the advancement in science in the last 150 years has confirmed the truth of Darwin's central tenet so thoroughly that it would be obtuse to reject it as a fact. If we make concise predictions and then observe the accuracy of those in multiple independent ways then we can have a very high degree of confidence in our convictions. If the truth of evolution depended on abstract thought alone then of course it would be a concern.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Venus - It's always worth doing a little research into context before you 'quote-mine'.
“Laws impressed on matter by the Creator”? - The Origin and the Question of Religion" by John Hedley Brooke.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Even Darwin wrote that “we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” - Venus
What do you mean by 'even Darwin'?
Darwin's theological opinions are of no consequence whatsoever. His loss of faith was gradual. He even studied at Cambridge to be a minister of religion as a younger man. His final rejection of belief in god followed the death of his favourite daughter Annie. I have visited her grave - something Darwin could not bring himself to do.
How many times do I have to repeat that evolution is accepted by all rational christians. It is a fallacy to conflate the scientific fact of biological evolution with the philosophical position of atheism.
Nobody cares how many learned men you can find who believed in god.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
no one would have thought about an alternative explanation such as Evolution - venus
Evolution is not an alternative to belief in god. . The majority of intelligent christians accept the scientific fact that all living things including humans descended from a common ancestor by evolution over millions of years.
It is only a small percentage of fundies who deny the evidence. Invariably they have never bothered to study the facts.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Asserting that accepting the fact of evolution requires faith is as obtuse as claiming that we need faith to believe that the moon is not made of cheddar cheese.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
Belief in God is totally unrelated to the fact of evolution. Once again you are off-topic.
-
41
How to Argue for Creationism
by cofty inall creationist arguments follow an identical pattern.. first a quick way to remember the format - 'complexity, complexity, complexity; therefore god'.. now a more detailed guide to formulating an argument.. identify some complex feature of the natural world.
a quick google search or nature documentary will quickly provide inspiration.
creationist websites have hundreds of them you can copy-paste without attribution.. do no research at all on what is currently known about the evolutionary history of this feature.
-
-
cofty
One says: Matter created life - Venus
No they don't. There was no agency involved.
The other says God created life …what is the difference?
Again - there was no agency involved. They could hardly be more different.
The way of the nature is such that it can be interpreted in both the ways—either in favor of evolution or creation.
No it can't. Evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt supported by mountains of evidence published in millions of peer-reviewed publications. Creationism is superstitious myth supported by absolutely nothing.
we find scientists from all avenues belonging to both the groups—evolution and creation
Although one might think that being a biologist or geologist or astronomer is required to prove a recent creation or intelligent design, creationists apparently disagree, as the list includes numerous of the following:
- mathematicians and statisticians — fields consisting almost entirely of a priori reasoning rather than scientific observation
- assorted medical professionals, including dentists, veterinarians and plastic surgeons
- engineers
- and even a couple of philosophers.
A large percentage of those signatories who do have a research record are retired.
Three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology. The number of biologists actively researching biological issues even remotely related to evolution can be counted on one hand.
Some of the listed scientists are academics, almost all at evangelical Christian universities.
Even the actual scientists frequently work in fields completely unrelated to the subject at hand.
-
340
Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution
by dubstepped inso i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
-
-
cofty
that was my damn point, that it was wrong to say everything about evolution was known
Which is a pointless point since nobody ever said that - ever.
ppl who believe in darwinism fail to acknowledge darwinism is many things -- some are proven beyond all reasonable doubt, other things are very speculative
Who ever failed to acknowledge that?
saying it is all proven to be true is really overstating the evidence
But nobody ever made that claim.
Evolution is a fact beyond all reasonable doubt. An immense amount of detail is already known right down to a molecular and genetic level. A great deal more remains to be discovered.
I have never observed anybody claim otherwise.
IMO thats why so much of the discussion is not useful
Creationists have no interest in evidence, that is why conversations are often frustrating.
Please stop saying 'lol'.