Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David B · 07-08-2007, 03:00 PM

I refer the OP to post 78

David B

TCPHumanist · 07-08-2007, 03:01 PM

OK, I've got to admit: anyone who uses the term "pokemon styled" as if it's a serious way of describing anything loses a ton-load of credibility. And anyone who seems to seriously think that anyone believes that nature can literally communicate with anyone doesn't look too in tune with reality either.

But then I got to here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Science is about observing the physical universe and identifying, as best as can be determined, the processes that govern it. The act of identifying physical processes does not mandate the faith that the processes are all there is.

and my mind allowed for a glimmer of hope. Samurai, that is what the theory of evolution is all about. Observing the physical world, and identifying the processes that govern it. Observing the data after the fact, and piecing together as best as possible a theory to fit the facts - and that theory is evolution.

So maybe you can stop playing petty wordgames, and start actually looking at the data, and start actually reading the Darwin quotes presented and the links provided. Just maybe.

CanoeMan · 07-08-2007, 03:03 PM

I sense a new eternal in the making here.

Coragyps · 07-08-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

But he quickly resorted to "EVOLUTION!! EVOLUTION!".

Quickly? Twenty-three years from the Galapagos to publishing is "quickly?" And CD didn't use the word "evolution" at all in the first edition of origin.

Facts matter, Sam. Sorry.

Coragyps · 07-08-2007, 03:06 PM

CanoeMan - I dare you to ask about bulls. :devil1:

someotherguy · 07-08-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Love

CONCLUSION: A truly naturalistic methodology is impossible without talking snakes and/or scientists who can shapechange into Pokemon.

I'll admit I didn't read the whole thing, but it made progressively less and less sense as I skimmed on, so I opted to quit while I was ahead. Dibs on Skitty or Porygon.

Don't stop your mind to think. There is possibility. But there is a limit. And since nature is very limited, then, the explanation that we observed from nature must be also limited. WE cannot say EVOLUTION. We can simly say, interrelation.

For example,

When Darwin went to Galapagos Island, he should not quickly concluded that the animals there are evolving. He should be called interrelating animals with respect to their surroundings.

But he quickly resorted to "EVOLUTION!! EVOLUTION!". It is supernatural!

Samurai - I'm not trying to be mean here, but judging from this and the other posts you have made in this thread, it's quite evident that you, quite literally, have no idea what you're talking about here.

Y.B · 07-08-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

We can call it "Evolution" if we can get nature to talk to, dialogue with us, and explain its/her side to us. But if not, then, we should stop there and use interrelation only. We should not go beyond science.

Maybe samurai's posts make sense if he thinks evolution predicts there will be talking trees and stuff. I like the Lord of the Rings and Ents as much as the next guy, but I'm afraid to tell you, samurai, that's not what the ToE predicts.

RAFH · 07-08-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Okay, so what you're saying (I think) is that the Theory of Evolution uses what you call supernatural explanations. Let's see.

Organism is born with subtly different DNA than it's parents. This is not supernatural.

The changes in its DNA make the organism slightly different (in appearance, etc) than it's parents. This is not supernatural either.

The differences that the organism has may make it a more effective hunter, or make it slightly easier to escape predators, or easier to reach food, or easier to hide, all based on the environment that the organism is living in. This is not supernatural.

If the organism is better at any of these things than it is more likely to reproduce and have offspring. This is not supernatural.

Over many, many generations, these small changes add up to larger changes. This is not supernatural.

I admit. I don't get it. Where is the supernatural explanation that evolution uses? You wouldn't be redefining supernatural, would you? How do you define supernatural?

Gullwind, you left off the other side of the process. Those changes which diminish survival (to the point of reproduction) and diminish successful reproduction and as well as diminish the survival of those offspring and their ability to successfully reproduce are just as effective in selection as those that promote survival and successful reproduction and the survival and successful reproduction of that offspring. Its not impossible for changes which very strongly promote survival and successful reproduction to get 'lost' because of being associated with changes which diminish survival and successful reproduction. Conversely, its just as possible for changes which diminish survival and successful reproduction to be carried along by changes which promote survival and successful reproduction. Depends on which change is more effective at either diminishing or promoting.

There are also changes which have no effect at all, at least at that time, but which may later become effective. They can be carried along or stopped as the case may be.

RAFH · 07-08-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Okay, so what you're saying (I think) is that the Theory of Evolution uses what you call supernatural explanations. Let's see.

Organism is born with subtly different DNA than it's parents. This is not supernatural.

The changes in its DNA make the organism slightly different (in appearance, etc) than it's parents. This is not supernatural either.

The differences that the organism has may make it a more effective hunter, or make it slightly easier to escape predators, or easier to reach food, or easier to hide, all based on the environment that the organism is living in. This is not supernatural.

If the organism is better at any of these things than it is more likely to reproduce and have offspring. This is not supernatural.

Over many, many generations, these small changes add up to larger changes. This is not supernatural.

I admit. I don't get it. Where is the supernatural explanation that evolution uses? You wouldn't be redefining supernatural, would you? How do you define supernatural?

I understood that. I agreed with that. That is what we're witnessing in nature. Changes occurs BUT it is simply called "interrelated process". It is not evolution. IT is INTERRELATION. No matter how long the time it may takes, it is called interrelation if only if we put science in naturalistic way. ALL animals in the world are interrelating to nature with respect to their places/surroundings and time. And that is fact. It is not evolution.

Is this the beginning of a new dictionary you (samurai) hope will be accepted by the world?

GilgameshEnkidu · 07-08-2007, 03:29 PM

So you agree that birds 'interrelated' from dinosaurs then?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 03:00 PM	#81
David B Contributor Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Wales Posts: 11,620	I refer the OP to post 78 David B

07-08-2007, 03:03 PM	#83
CanoeMan Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: out for some Rest 'n Relaxation Posts: 3,106	I sense a new eternal in the making here.

07-08-2007, 03:06 PM	#85
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	CanoeMan - I dare you to ask about bulls. :devil1:

07-08-2007, 03:29 PM	#90
GilgameshEnkidu Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 422	So you agree that birds 'interrelated' from dinosaurs then?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.