What's new
By:

Evolution - A serious question.

It's hard for me to comprehend how someone could think evolution isn't a fact. As far as humans from apes, that's a question of religion, and since I'm anything but religious, of course I think a primate (human) evolved from a primate.
 
One Brow said:
Dembski is not a scientist. He is a mathematician.
Click to expand...

You want some Millsapa action? Here is some:

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts." ~ Albert Einstein

Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. He has also held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

He definitely qualifies as a brilliant scientist in my book.
 
Millsapa said:
You want some Millsapa action? Here is some:

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts." ~ Albert Einstein

Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. He has also held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.

He definitely qualifies as a brilliant scientist in my book.
Click to expand...

But we're talking about Biology...
 
So? He studied physics and computer science, doesn't that make him an expert in biology and every other field out there? I wonder what his stock picks are, he's also, by association to other fields, a brilliant economist. I'd rather hear his opinion than actual biologists too, because they study too much. Am I right, Millsapa?

- Craig :)
 
The-Joker said:
But we're talking about Biology...
Click to expand...

Then why did you use blackjack and dice roll analogies (probabilities) if we are only talking about biology?

Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire
 
Last edited:
NUMBERICA said:
It's hard for me to comprehend how someone could think evolution isn't a fact. As far as humans from apes, that's a question of religion, and since I'm anything but religious, of course I think a primate (human) evolved from a primate.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of evolution if you are separating it from the "humans from ape" question?
 
The-Joker said:
Social Darwinism and Darwinism are 2 different concepts based in 2 separate pools of ideas... the only thing they have in common is the word "Darwinism". And that's not even accurate... Evolution became a "issue in the general public" because Darwin was interpreted as saying "it can work without god", where before you couldn't possibly explain the intricacies of life without God.
Click to expand...

Darwinists love pools. Eugenics and Darwinism stem from the same "gene pool" or "ape like ancestor" if you will. Francis Dalton (the dude who coined the phrase eugenics) was Darwin's cousin.

eugenics-tree.jpg


See how it says "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution?" Do you still want to argue that the two "concepts" don't share the same designed attributes?
 
Millsapa, I'm on your side with the whole "evolution and science are wrong, the bible is correct" thing, but we have to let this go. They have logic and reason, they have always had that. But we don't want that, we have faith. Faith is like knowing the sun will rise, remember your primary songs? I know you think, "Maybe by ignoring their arguments, they'll forget they made them, like I did. And then they'll become Christians!" but this just isn't the way to do it. Love and peace.

- Craig :) :)
 
Millsapa said:
You want some Millsapa action?
Click to expand...

Millsapa action is like a one-night stand: fun and a quick release, but shallow, disconnected, and lacking in meaningful substance.

Millsapa said:
"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts." ~ Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

If Einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic. It's a valid point of view to say mathematicians are seekers of truths, similar to scientists, but they have different standards for truth and different ways of seeking truth.

Millsapa said:
Dembski has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton. He has also held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.
Click to expand...

All of the paper where Dembski was the primary author were on mathematics (primarily his take on information theory). In all the joint projects to which he has contributed, his contribution was mathematical. Whatever his schooling, by profession he is a mathematician.

Millsapa said:
He definitely qualifies as a brilliant scientist in my book.
Click to expand...

So far, your book has all depth and subtlety of "Green Eggs and Ham".
 
Millsapa said:
Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire
Click to expand...

What you won't hear at Uncommon Descent (unless the site has changed in the last couple of years) is that anthropology and forensic sciences use analogy as their primary method of design detection. That is, they look for design by comparing to what other designers have done. ID claims that we can't use this methodology (because to do so opens the door to all the examples of what would be truly bad design in biology).
 
Millsapa said:
See how it says "Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution?" Do you still want to argue that the two "concepts" don't share the same designed attributes?
Click to expand...

Before the Theory of Evolution, eugenicists (under s different name) used the ideas of animal husbandry and breeding. Th ideas of eugenics precedes evolutiobary theory, and is discreditied by evolutionary theory. That eugenicists tried to adopt evolutionary theory to give them a veneer of respectability is not a surprise.
 
one brow said:
if einstein were a philosopher of science, or a philosopher of mathematics, or even a mathematician, he would have some authority on the status of mathematics as a science. Since he was a physicist, he doesn't have mush authority on this particular topic.
Click to expand...

LoL!!!!
 
One Brow said:
Since the Theory of Evolution does not have a concept of "the first bird", what is there to explain?
Click to expand...

They don't have a "concept" of the first bird?
Well they certainly have a "concept" of our supposed first ape like ancestor. Of course it is only a drawing, and science ain't about the ability to concoct a drawing of a "concept."
As for birds. There has to be a first bird in evolution and there also has to be a bird-like ancestor before that and so on and so forth back to the first single celled organism in the pool of goo...if the random mutation is incremental. Or does some non-flying animal suddenly pop out wings and feathers, webbed feet, and the ability to make nests?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top