Where is the damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution? All I have ever heard and read is marginal evidence and lots of supposition along with a non or atheistic worldview that specifically rules out the possibility of considering the existence of God. Science cannot imply God? Complexity cannot imply God? To you people, it cannot because evolution is true. Since evolution is true, complexity is due to evolution a priori. Tautological, completely.
Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth that might lend credence to the argument that you all so despise–the very NOTION of the existence of God–then research is done with the goal in mind (implicit or explicit) of finding an explanation that fits within evolutionary theory. Peer review rules out the possibility of even considering any outside-the-box thinking. Toe the pseudoscientific philosophical line or be ridiculed and marginalized.
33 comments
"Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity..."?
Irreducible complexity a theory? What what what? Would you care to present some testable predictions based upon your theory? Oh, you cannot? Then fuck off and learn what science is.
"Where is the damn solid evidence for Dawinian macroevolution."
Scattered thru out the museums and universities of the world, pssst it's also available online.
"Science cannot imply God?"
Science makes no claims on the existance or nonexistance of God. However, science does make biblical literalism look rather silly.
"Whenever a theory such as irreducible complexity is brought forth...."
It isn't a theory nor is it science but rather thinly veiled religion aka goddidit! Next?
how does peer review rule out the possibility of thinking outside the box?
evolution does not imply there is no god (thats your job) it simply doesn't imply there is one either.
irreducible complexity doesn't imply god either.
I must conclude you have no idea what you are talking about.
And to think, it started with a complex-yet-reducible chain of amino acids.
g0d, being supernatural and/or imaginary, is an unnecessary and unwanted variable in any sort of serious investigation.
I don't believe in god, but I also don't think that evolution cancels out god. It could simply be his way of populating the planet with creatures that fit each environment niche. Which is easier? Creating billions of different species, or making them so they can create themselves? This being said, while god is not specifically canceled out, he is not really needed either.
You're absolutely right, Physician. There is no damn solid evidence for Darwinian macroevolution because there ain't no such animal. You fundies just made that up. Out of threadbare cloth, I might add.
There's the TOE which has tons of proof that you adamantly refuse to acknowledge much less study. Which brings up a more troubling point: If you really went through med school, how did you manage to graduate and get your license?
Or is Physician just an honorary title like Colonel in the state militia?
Physician, heel thyself! (old joke, sorry, couldn't resist)
Look at Genesis, Chapter 1.
"Let the earth bring forth plants and herbs." "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures." "Let the earth bring forth living creatures."
Even the Bible says that life came from water and the earth.
Okay, the second chapter has God breathing on piles of dirt, but Chapter 1 is completely compatible with evolution.
I love when physicians throw their useless creditials around as if it's supposed to lend some authority to their knowledge of the theory of evolution (I notice engineers do this shit too).
When I have cancer, I'm certainly not going to head to a biology department - why do physician's think they are special in this regard.
"Where is the damn solid evidence" that you are a physician(outside a blind claim on the internet)? Maybe I have just become cynical after seeing claims of supposed collegiate professors in logic without any knowledge of said subject, supposed religion professors claiming atheism as a religion(not at any reputable religion department I've ever heard of) and supposed scientists without 5th grade knowledge of biology.
I think I know this guy. We had him on talk.origins one time, and the more he posted, the less likely it was he really was a doctor. He did a Brave Sir Robin in the end, as they do.
Darwin was not an atheist.
How did the peer-review procedure go for the Theory of Irreducible Complexity? How many times has it been re-evaluated and updated?
Like patches said, peer-review allows for thinking outside the box, but stops thinking outside reality.
You have the gall to call evolution pseudoscientific? That's a good one!
Macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution after one another, sort of like reading a book is reading a lot of words after one another.
Atheism has nothing to do with biology, and nor has God. Science would have to prove the existence of God before it can imply His involvement in anything.
Irreducible complexity is little more than an idea, it's not a hypothesis, and certanilnly not a theory.
It's more like "Toe the reality line or be ridiculed and marginalized".
Ya wanna prove God? OK
Quit wasting everyones time and produce something that isn't fable.
"irreducible complexity" fails EVERY test. ID is a total failure as it is a concept of religious faith.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
