From: rokimoto557@gmail.com
On 11/14/2025 4:58 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:44:19 -0600, sticks
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2025 10:20 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> On 11/11/2025 5:38 PM, sticks wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2025 7:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>
>> ---snip---
>>
>>>>> Your sig is "Science doesn't support Darwin. Scientists do.". Who is
>>>>> concluding that science doesn't support Darwin?
>>>>
>>>> If you want to get pedantic, obviously me since it is my sig. But are
>>>> you really saying you have not heard this before? Would you feel
>>>> better if my stance on this was this instead: The Evidence Doesn't
>>>> Support Darwin. Scientists Do.
>>>
>>> This is actually a lie. Natural selection has been demonstrated to be a
>>> fact of nature, and that is basically all that Darwin added to
>>> evolutionary notions. He just came up with one of the known mechanisms
>>> for producing the diversity of life on earth. Darwin's grandfather is
>>> known to have advocated the evolution of life on earth. What Darwin
>>> proposed was a means of evolving the diversity of life that we currently
>>> observe, and he turned out to be correct, and science consistently
>>> vindicates his hypothesis.
>>
>> Everyone acknowledges micro evolution. I am unaware of anything
>> vindicating his natural selection mechanism being able to create another
>> anything. From a new limb, wings, anything, but especially a new family
>> of animals. Of course there are changes from gene mutation copying
>> errors, but most all are harmful. But as far as I'm aware there is
>> absolutely no proof of macro evolution where one form turns into
>> another. I have no problem with people who believe natural selection
>> has the type of powers the evolutionist claims. I'm sure they will put
>> out their evidence when they get it.
>>
>>
>>> What creationists are lying about when they put up such nonsense is the
>>> notion that natural mechanisms of evolution are all that there ever was
>>> or is. Darwin never held such beliefs, and he understood that natural
>>> selection was likely only one way that life could be changed by descent
>>> with modification.
>>
>> Yes, he kept inserting references to his deistic Darwinism in every
>> edition as a means of preempting his opponents. I believe he had many
>> doubts of his theory, with good reason. But in the end he held onto
>> materialistic thinking.
>>
>>> As has been noted in this thread the notion that life has evolved on
>>> this planet solely by natural means has never been part of the
>>> scientific theory of biological evolution. It wasn't initiated by
>>> Darwin, and never became part of the scientific theory. The scientific
>>> theory of biological evolution only consists of what we have been able
>>> to determine about it. It does not include things that have not been
>>> scientifically demonstrated to be so.
>>
>> You might feel what you say to be true, but it is quite evident that the
>> entire consensus today in the evolution crowd is everything happened
>> with only natural means. I don't see how you can say otherwise to be
>> honest.
>
>
> Sticks, RonO, and Harran are all here conflating philosophical
> principles with consensus scientific theories. The latter necessarily
> seek to explain observed material evidence, but in no way restrict all
> possible explanations to those scientific theories. That's a
> difference ignored in conversations with posters like sticks who
> obsessively focus on origins.
>
You wanted to include solely by natural means as a philosophical
principle. I did not. I just stated the fact that it is not and never
has been part of the scientific theory of biological evolution. That is
fact, not a philosophical principle. It is due the scientific notion
that we should stick to what we can determine to exist, and not include
things that we can't support.
Ron Okimoto
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
