The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Darwin: evidence is everything > Comments

Darwin: evidence is everything : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 18/2/2009

Freud, Marx and Darwin - three great scholars: but only one could provide evidence for his theories.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
If evidence is everything then Darwin's theory of natural selection is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that it makes ontological claims without reference to ontological evidence (which is a virtual impossibility).
The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are undermined by their inability to answer the simple question which is -

"why should life perpetuate itself?"
Posted by The Bulkman, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 10:42:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rubbish
Evolutionary theory dosent have to nor does it attempt to answer "why should life perpetuate itself?"

Evolution is a scientific theory not a philosophical theory.
Posted by mikk, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In fact, Bulkman, ther is an answer to the question why does life perpectuate itself.. If it did not perpeptuate itself we would not be her to ask why life should perpetuate itself.. species that stop reproducing die out and are later found as imprints on rocks. Those that struggle to reproduce themselves may end up writing blogs...
Posted by Curmudgeon, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 11:15:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought it was generally accepted that genes are selfish.
Another key difference between Marx, Freud and Darwin was that Darwin in his book tries to disprove his theory with various arguments and then comes to the conclusion that as he cannot disprove it you may as well accept it as the simplest explanation. Accordingly Darwin is a scientist. Marx and Freud take the opposite tack and try to prove their theories.
Both were pseudo-scientists.
Posted by EQ, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are strengthened by their ability to answer the question

"why should life perpetuate itself?"

That is the purpose of life "to survive" as a live collection of cells, chemicals and soul.

Darwin's approach is certainly disliked by those who's sense of purpose in life revolves around theories not substantive, not capable of being tested.

This is clear in political or social debates.

Where terms "race", "racial" or "ethnic" regularly used - abused, with racial labels presented as substantive arguments for why people should be, need be, treated differently.

Defending racism as a label ignored is scientific evidence of the few scientific differences that actually exist between humans, particularly where attempted were measures of differences by race.

Is NOT acceptable, even in Australia, to reject arguments dependent upon racial labels.
Posted by polpak, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:22:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,
This article seems to be in search of a purpose.
The criticism you make of Marx could be made of every philosopher.

Both Freud and Marx were important ultimately because they started something new not that they were necessarily correct.

Everyone with an opinion will defend it those that have careers built on them will fight harder...human nature. Is as I suspect you are trying to push a line for capitalism. I would have to ask whose version?

I fairly point out that neither capitalism as it’s practiced nor economics has got a good track record for universal predictability. This is a major plank of being a science and therefore fails your evidence test too.
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 12:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with examinator.

The article reeks of a personal grievance. The author spent 20 years at the AFR, so it's to be expected that he'd reject everything Marx wrote as easily as he'd uncritically accept any aspect of free market fundamentalism.

As for Freud, his ideas have been reviewed, dismissed and modified, but still form the basis of psychological therapy. The kind of contempt Mr Lawson has for Freud is, in my experience, a defensive reaction to hearing unpleasant truths from a shrink. Just like the Scientologists.
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 1:11:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is not ever a debate when it involves Karl Marx; the fact of the matter is that the whole syntheses of idiocy that became a ridicules manifesto was written by some clown who extorted his parents- Never had a job – and that is never; Kicked out of Germany – Kicked out of France and blessed the Poms with his presence – Unemployed and Unemployable- In fact, the only leader in the whole world who ,aspired to Marxism to the very letter ;- is that communist nemesis; Adolf Hitler –
Figure that one out.

Now you need to ask yourselves why it took 100 years for Marx and cronies letters – Publications- and profile to be found and translated – and it takes propaedeutic efforts to untangle the web - the profusion of obsequious myrmidon is inter generational ;-
The whole entire episode is Reductio Ad Absurdum-
Posted by All-, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 2:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EQ
"Darwin in his book tries to disprove his theory with various arguments and then comes to the conclusion that as he cannot disprove it you may as well accept it as the simplest explanation. Accordingly Darwin is a scientist. Marx and Freud take the opposite tack and try to prove their theories.
Both were pseudo-scientists."

You have hit the nail right on the head.

Examinator
"I fairly point out that neither capitalism as it’s practiced nor economics has got a good track record for universal predictability."

There is no reason for capitalism to have a good track record for universal predictability, as it is not a science and is not claiming to be. The claim is that, of all the competing entrepreneurs, those who successfully predict the future state of the market will make profits, and that a prediction system based on profit and loss will be far more effective in general and over the long run than one based on centralised command and control.

Economics in general does not have a good track record for predicatability, but the Austrian School of economics does. They predicted the Great Depression, the collapse of socialism and its degeneration into economic chaos and totalitarian government, and correctly predicted the current crisis, years in advance: see www.mises.org

Interestingly, even though the Austrian school has proved better at predicting than the other schools, it considers that predictability is not the criterion of the science of economics, because of the variability of human behaviour. Prediction is not the job of economics, but of entrepreneurs. The Austrian school instead holds that the criterion of a science of human action is that its tenets must be logically deduced from axioms of human action, and must be internally consistent, and consistent with external reality. It passes these tests, and also coincidentally has much higher predicting value than those schools of economics which mistakenly model themselves on the science of physics or mechanics
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 2:37:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The bulkman

Could you please render your objection in plain English? I can't understand what you're saying.

Dictionary.com defines ontology as "The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being."

The question 'why should life perpetuate itself?' is ambiguous, depending whether we are asking why it should as a fact or as a value. Science and Darwin provide and assume no normative value why it should.

However given or assuming that life does perpetuate itself, Darwin's theory provides an explanation how species originate.

Darwin's claim as to ontology, the nature of being, is that species originate by a certain process. It does this by referring to ontological evidence, ie evidence on the nature of being, as follows:
1. more of a species are born than can surive
2. members of a species differ as between themselves
3. these differences are inherited and are decisive as to survival and reproduction
4. species originate from these differences accumulated over long periods of time.

Therefore Darwin's theory is not fundamentally flawed for the reasons you allege.
Posted by Peter Hume, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 3:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would respectfully suggest that Lawson and respondents at least attempt to read Capital before spouting such ignorance about Marx. Leslie
Posted by Leslie, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 3:29:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm no Marx scholar, but at least one of the criticisms is wrong. Marx changed his ideas in the course of his life.

As for proof in science, it is a normal part of scientific reasoning. Galileo demonstrated that heaver bodies did not fall faster than lighter ones by a process of reasoning, not by going up the Leaning Tower of Pisa and dropping stones.

Newton maintained his theory of motion and of gravity in spite of numerous apparent counter-examples. He indeed said that the counter-examples were mistaken. (But he did adjust other theories, such as that of optics, to account for them; and the other theories were tested in their turn, and gave better predictions than those relied on by those who produced the counter-examples.) Newtonian mechanics continued to be the dominant theory until Einstein, in spite of the fact that the orbit of Mercury could not be reconciled with it. It continued in part because of few spectacular correct predictions--two new planets for example.

Because all observation is theory-laden, scientific development is never just a matter of throwing up examples and counter-examples.

Note also that there are no examples of Newton's first law of motion. You can only test it as part of the whole theory.
Posted by ozbib, Wednesday, 18 February 2009 5:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would suggest any endeavour could be likened to walking through a minefield. A fair definition of 'leader' then becomes 'one who is not afraid of making mistakes'.
Anyone who is afraid of making mistakes, or having people jeer at them, should go second. That way, when the leader inevitably steps on a mine they can... swap with the person behind them.
Darwin was I think, undeniably and indisputably the best 'leader' of the three. He spent much more time analysing his minefield, and made more careful -meticulous- observations.
He was able to penetrate his minefield to an admirable degree with the knowledge available to him.
Marx and Freud probably didn't penetrate their respective minefields to any great degree before they blew up, but they still started the path, and for that they deserve some credit.
In their defense, there was less knowledge available to them about their particular fields (as Mr Lawson partially acknowledges), and observation was arguably trickier.
It could be argued the comparison is unfair, inasmuch as Darwin was working in part with knowledge left to him by others; Lyall, Malthus and others did make strong contributions to Darwin's 'map', and Wallace contributed strong corroborative evidence.
Of course, the safest course is to not enter a minefield at all; just stand on the edge and throw pooh.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 19 February 2009 7:39:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
and then there's mother Theresa who did more good for humanity than all these 3 rogues put together.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 February 2009 10:44:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pull your head in Runner. This thread is not about Darwin vs genesis.

As far as I know posters here do not lurk about creationist blogs throwing spanners about. If you really want to test your ideas then grow some balls and visit http://richarddawkins.net/forum/
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:31:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newton ignoring contradictions in this theory? Eh? There was never anything like that for Newton's Principia.. the problems with Newtonian mechanics did not become apparent until the late 19th century and then scientists did not quite what to do about it.. the correspondent may be refering to Newton's work in alchemy which is seldom discussed. It is also true that he was a difficult, unpleasant man who little time for scientific discussion.

The main point of the article was that Marx and Freud did nothing that could be considered research, but still put forward elaborate theories based on little more than their prejudicies.. as noted, both men kicked off new ways of doing things but that must be counter-blanaced by the fact that it took decades, almost a century or more to get rid of the nonsense that that their theories inspired.. Darwin's work has withstood the test of time, because he bothered with evidence and reasoning..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 19 February 2009 11:43:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh come on Bennie

This might not be about Genesis/ evolution but it is about a science fiction writer who many take seriously because it allows them to live like animals. I think it was a French Professor who said that evolution was a fairytale for adults. Going on the evidence produced by Darwinist his statement has proven to be true.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 February 2009 2:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to admit when someone mentioned Mine fields and throwing Poo; just about summed it up quite well;
Karl Marx and The Freudian slip were Mind Field and Paradigm Shift operators, and in a true Darwinian supposition of evolution with a couple addendums - ; You ought never speak ill of the poo, it could be someone’s ancestral parent.

But the one question I have to ask as I have done always; and that is; how many Darwinian’s have read and understood Charles Darwin’s Publications? There are Twenty One of them in ebook.
My confident prediction of the answer is ; None ; For if that is the case , how do people reach their opinions on the subject if not by total indoctrination ; hear say and puerile sycophantic idiotry that has become Post Modernism ;- ,

The second part of the fact that negates the whole entire episode ; Charles Darwin’s own Biography . Written By himself, He clearly states his objective and motivation – and his reasoning why none of his theory could ever be held up to scientific scrutiny – because it was never a scientific endeavour
Posted by All-, Thursday, 19 February 2009 3:38:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since when have you ever listened to Professors, runner?
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 19 February 2009 3:40:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

That comes of my relying on a former colleague's lectures--against my own principles.

However, the following two quotations from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy bear on your comment.

'The radical revision of the Principia became abandoned by 1693, during the middle of which Newton suffered, by his own testimony, what in more recent times would be called a nervous breakdown. In the two years following his recovery that autumn, he continued his experiments in chymistry [sic] and he put substantial effort into trying to refine and extend the gravity-based theory of the lunar orbit in the Principia, but with less success than he had hoped....'

'Several of the loose-ends were successfully resolved during the 1740's through such notable advances beyond the Principia as Clairaut's Théorie de la Figure de la Terre; the return of the expedition from Peru; d'Alembert's 1749 rigid-body solution for the wobble of the Earth that produces the precession of the equinoxes; Clairaut's 1749 resolution of the factor of 2 discrepancy between theory and observation in the mean motion of the lunar apogee, glossed over by Newton but emphasized by Machin; and the prize-winning first ever successful description of the motion of the Moon by Tobias Mayer in 1753, based on a theory of this motion derived from gravity by Euler in the early 1750s taking advantage of Clairaut's solution for the mean motion of the apogee.'

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sub Newton.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton/

I take it that that means that Newton was aware of a problem, tried and failed to solve it, but held on to his theory. And rightly.
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 19 February 2009 5:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting claims, runner. Particularly when they come from someone who had to cut-and-run from another thread because they couldn't back some similar assertions with anything credible.
Posted by AdamD, Thursday, 19 February 2009 5:37:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,
Religion is a fairy tale for adults. Evolution is a theory based on physical evidence, and for the record, Mother Teresa actually didn't do much for humanity.

She did put bandages on the poor but never once tried to address the cause of their poverty. Her order accumulated lots of money but little of it found its way to the poor.

Maybe she was thinking about what Brazilian Archbishop Dom Helder Camara said -

"When I give food to the poor, they call me a Saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

She must have decided to play it safe.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 20 February 2009 12:46:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If evidence is everything then Darwin's theory of natural selection is fundamentally flawed"

For some people the only evidence that would suffice is a booming voice from heaven.

Of course, the evidence for both the evolutionary process (eg the fossil record) and Darwin's theories (eg selective breeding, simple observation) is compelling. But it requires an open mind.
Posted by Greig, Friday, 20 February 2009 6:18:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It would be quite conclusive to assume that is the problem Grieg, people’s observations and looking at things through a metaphysician’s eye that allows their own Solipsism to overlook the scientific measurement, and allow dysfunctional opinions and mantra as evidence of the existence of objectives.
People’s minds are opened that wide, it is obvious their brains have fall out .
Posted by All-, Friday, 20 February 2009 10:46:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AdamD

Interesting claims, runner. Particularly when they come from someone who had to cut-and-run from another thread because they couldn't back some similar assertions with anything credible.

It becomes very obvious that evolutionist have no logical answer for beginnings. Why bother going around the mulberry bush when you can't even come up with a sensible answer on beginnings. Your blind faith is incredible.
Posted by runner, Friday, 20 February 2009 1:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ozbib - sorry, I only just looked back at your comment on my commnet.. I was intriged to read that bit you had from the Oxford philosophy reference. Without seeing the whole thing I can't be sure but I suspect whoever wrote that is pulling or pushing something.. the chemical stuff it refers to is the alchemy I mentioned. Newton was a nut about the subject.. his Principia, however, is a cornerstone of pre-modern (ie Newtonian) physics.. the ideas he put forward were not seriously modified until Einstein.. extend gravity beyond the moon? What! That guy is raving.. but I must look it up.. tnks for brining it to my attention..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Friday, 20 February 2009 1:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear runner,

What did that have to do with the price of fish?

Considering there is objective evidence for the natural explanations, and no objective evidence for the supernatural explanations, the faith in the supernatural explanations is infinitely more blind and the answers infinitely less sensible.

Speaking of fish though, we’re off topic here.
Posted by AdamD, Friday, 20 February 2009 2:06:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon, I don't think that the claim in the Stanford Encyclopaedia is that Newton's theory was seriously modified because of the problem of the moon's orbit--rather, the problem was not enough for people to dismiss the theory, because the theory was so successful. My point is that the philosophy of science is more complex and sophisticated than Mark Lawons appears to be aware, so that the grounds on which he dismisses Marx are not solid. (Freud is another matter--he cheated over the evidence.)

To dismiss the whole of Marx's output so cavalierly is mind-blowing. Which theories are being rejected? That of ideology? The early theory of alienation? Economic determinism? Or is it only that a communist society is inevitable? Or that it would be good (if that is how Marx is to be interpreted)?

I think you will find that the Stanford Philosophy Department is pretty reliable.

You might note that Newton himself revised his Principia--not the basic three laws of motion however.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 20 February 2009 8:57:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner! I know why you wont debate me on these questions and its for the simple fact you have read my posts! I have explained very clearly on how god evolved with the human mind.

Evidence is everything! and the fact still remains, that you do have any!

Sheep people! but don't worry runner! we will wait for you.

All the best my friend.

EVO2
Posted by EVO2, Saturday, 21 February 2009 9:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'If evidence is everything then Darwin's theory of natural selection is fundamentally flawed, to the extent that it makes ontological claims without reference to ontological evidence (which is a virtual impossibility).
The assumptions which underpin Darwin's theories of evolution are undermined by their inability to answer the simple question which is -

"why should life perpetuate itself?"'

Darwin's Theory doesn't have to answer 'why'. Simply describing HOW will suffice.

But to answer your question Bulkman; life perpetuates itself for the same reason that galaxies and solar systems perpetuate themselves across the Universe - because 'blind' natural processes specify that they can.
Posted by TR, Saturday, 21 February 2009 8:34:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hopefully before evolutionist find themselves in hell they will go the same way as their once champion Professor Anthony Flew.
In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads' After 50 plus years of defending a lie he faced the truth.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 22 February 2009 12:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner! How can we find ourselves in hell when you know what I believe in?
We live and we die! That's all there is in this universe. Evangelism is dieing also, and as long as the spiritual mind still needs some more space, again! we will wait for you.

Religion is not child abuse in a sense, I simply look at it as that's the way it was.

So Runner! How does it feel when evo evangelism comes across your way?

Don't like it much do you!

Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Did I for get my favourite word again!

Arrrrrr! That's right... BALANCE.

This not a place for preaching! Runner! can you talk without doing this?

EVO
Posted by EVO2, Monday, 23 February 2009 12:42:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so evolution is only a theory and hear I thought it was a belief system or religion
Posted by Richie 10, Monday, 23 February 2009 12:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you actually read anything about Flew, runner? Or did someone at church just give you his name to fling about when you're challenged to provide a cogent argument?

Flew isn't a fundamentalist, as you are. Take this statement: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins".

Flew puts your version of god on par with Islam's. Are you happy to defend his claim that the Christian god is a "cosmic Saddam Hussein"?

Also, as MSNBC notes, Flew "accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts that it can explain the ultimate origins of life."

Well, duh. Explaining development is all the theory of evolution does. It doesn't deny the existence of god, just disproves the primitive nonsense contained in the pack of folk stories we call the Christian Bible.

Argue about the origins all you like. Just don't try to destroy tested, observable science because it makes you feel vulnerable.

I now challenge you to provide a response containing verifiable information, and not hollow threats of hellfire.
Posted by Sancho, Monday, 23 February 2009 12:33:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Richie 10! I used the word belief/believe as a metafore. Quick to jump on that one, weren't you.

Sancho! here! here!

EVO
Posted by EVO2, Monday, 23 February 2009 7:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd like to second Sancho's comments on Flew.

Flew is often held aloft by apologists as some kind of trump card (I like to call it the 'Argument ad Flewum'). But if they are consistent they'll also say he's as hellbound as any atheist since he doesn't believe that the creator of the universe came to earth as his own son so that he could temporarily die to forgive us for the evil stamped on our genomes because someone was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit of the wrong tree.
Posted by SJ, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 12:35:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho you write

'Flew isn't a fundamentalist, as you are'

When did I claim he was a fundamentalist? What is your definition of a fundamentalist? There seems to be a few fundamentalist atheist on these posts.

SJ

'Flew is often held aloft by apologists as some kind of trump card (I like to call it the 'Argument ad Flewum'). '

No he is not a trump card just someone who studied for 50 years and came to the only sensible and honest conclusion that he had to go where the evidence was. And it certainly wasn't and isn't with evolution.

By the way SJ you are right. We are all hellbound unless we are justified by the Sinless One. Self righteousness will get none of us anywhere. Thank God for sending Jesus.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 24 February 2009 3:46:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Did you miss the fact that Flew "accepts Darwinian evolution"? Or did you just filter it out because it renders your claims null and void?

It's quite clear, runner, that you know nothing about Antony Flew, what he wrote or thought, or how it relates to the theory of evolution - not at all. You just heard he was a recanted atheist and decided to put your words in his mouth and attribute to him beliefs that he not only does not hold, but actively refutes.

But since you're claiming him as a comrade, do you support Flew's claim that the Christian god is a "cosmic Saddam Hussein", no better than the god of Islam?
Posted by Sancho, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 6:16:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho you write

'Did you miss the fact that Flew "accepts Darwinian evolution"? Or did you just filter it out because it renders your claims null and void?'

The fact is that Flew knew Darwinian evolution has no answers for beginnings. Have you filtered that fact out? I don't consider Flew a comrade as He obviously is not a confessing Christian. What has that got to do with the price of eggs? There are many scientist who know that Darwinian evolution is an adult fairy tale with no scientific basis.

Flew's view of God as reported by you assuming you accurate is about as credible as the atheist view of their being no God. Whenever you deny the Only True God you replace it with some fantasy. He along with you seems to have done that.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 25 February 2009 6:32:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner: "No he is not a trump card just someone who studied for 50 years and came to the only sensible and honest conclusion that he had to go where the evidence was."

I'm still unimpressed. What will impress me is arguments, not invalid appeals to authority. If the Pope quits believing tomorrow will you do likewise?

"The fact is that Flew knew Darwinian evolution has no answers for beginnings."

No one is claiming it does. It explains biological diversity, not origins. We don't yet fully understand the origin of matter, but that doesn't stop us from devising laws of physics and chemistry to dscribe how matter behaves.

"I don't consider Flew a comrade as He obviously is not a confessing Christian. What has that got to do with the price of eggs?...Flew's view of God as reported by you assuming you accurate is about as credible as the atheist view of their being no God."

Then why did you mention Flew?

"There are many scientist who know that Darwinian evolution is an adult fairy tale with no scientific basis."

And what PROPORTION of the scientific community to they make up?
Posted by SJ, Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:03:58 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"so evolution is only a theory and hear I thought it was a belief system or religion"

Yes, it's only a theory in the same way gravity is only a theory. Your misunderstanding stems from the duplicity of creationists and the non-logic used to argue against science.

Runner you're a troublesome, fundie troll. Why persist?
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:10:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, runner. You’re the gift that keeps on giving.

This effort is particularly entertaining. You’re so desperate to smear the theory of evolution that you have to exploit someone who describes your god as “an oriental despot” by citing opinions he doesn’t hold, then claiming that his contempt for your beliefs is irrelevant because - even though he mocks your religion and endorses evolution - he doesn’t deny the possibility of a divine origin.

By your reasoning, the Catholic church is more atheist than Christian because it acknowledges the process of evolution. The Discovery Institute is also atheist because it promotes “microevolution”.

But really, you knew nothing about Antony Flew when you wrote that post. Between the snake-handling and talking in tongues, someone’s leaned over to you in church and said “psst! Runner! A bloke named “Flew” used to be an atheist, but changed his mind.”

So instead of reading up about Flew and what he actually believes, you came straight to OLO and started dropping his name to back up the surreal claims you make to shield yourself from the uncertainties of the real world.

What did you think would happen? Did you think we’d all say, “well, runner says a once-prominent atheist now believes in god”, and run straight down to Hillsong? Did you think no-one would be familiar with Flew or bother to even check his Wikipaedia entry?

Since you’re just going to lie, why stop at Flew? Why not claim the full support of Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins? Considering they’ve both written more in their lifetimes than God has in 2000 years, they have a lot more authority.

You make a laughing-stock of yourself and of Christianity. Keep up the good work, old bean.

And why are you so uncomfortable with plurals?
Posted by Sancho, Thursday, 26 February 2009 1:55:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

You obviously have no idea of Darwin's theory of natural selection, as if you did you would realise that it makes no claims about the beginnings of life what so ever. It merely shows how an organism can evolve.

This coupled with extensive fossil records that follow neatly the progression suggested by this theory provide over whelming evidence that evolution was actually the mechanism for producing every life form presently on earth.

The actual creation of life itself has not been discovered YET. However, all the previous pronouncements by creationists on why evolution is faulty have been proved wrong.

I would bet that within the next few decades even this mystery will be solved, and the rear guard of the creationists will have no where else to run. So runner you can run but not hide.
Posted by Democritus, Thursday, 26 February 2009 5:43:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy