[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Edward]

I'm confused by this conversation. To explain something accurately without mentioning it's weaknesses usually means to defend it, even if inadvertently. If a person doesn't believe in evolution, why would he have any interest in explaining it without also pointing out it's weaknesses? Maybe that's why people are having a hard time understanding what it is you want them to say or to respond in the way you want them to respond?

Bingo brother. But he doesn't want to have to defend or explain his position, just wants to correct others and...have them accept it. Which is...not right.

 

[Rick W]

If I was having a discussion with a Muslim, and he asked me to explain Islam to him as accurately as I could whilst knowing I disagree with it, then I would absolutely agree to demonstrate what I understand.

Great!
Next time a Muslim wants to discuss what we know about Islam in "Christianity and Other Religions" I'll look you up.

 

[Edward]

That is not true, and I will explain why. I don't agree with 9/11 Truthers, yet it is conceivably possible to represent their views accurately in such a way that I do not also criticize it. This would simply demonstrate that I understand their view, as I would not make any reference to whether or not it is true.

This is something that is often done in debates to see if a person can actually properly represent an opposing view, rather than arguing against a Straw Man or false conception of that view.

I can also properly explain what a Creationist believes, without assenting to agreement that the beliefs held by Creationists are true.

Perhaps one could even say, "I am not an evolutionist and I don't agree with what they believe, but this is what they believe."

So to think they are defending it, would be incorrect as the purpose of this thread is to clarify if those attacking Evolution actually understand it.

Who attacked it? This is your thread brother...you asked for creationists to explain how they see and understand evolution. You can't honorably now say that we're attacking it when we're just trying to answer the question you asked.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Who attacked it? This is your thread brother...you asked for creationists to explain how they see and understand evolution. You can't honorably now say that we're attacking it when we're just trying to answer the question you asked.

My last statement wasn't an observation of this thread in particular, though Creationists are attacking evolution in this thread despite it's stated purpose in the OP. However, my statement is a general observation about Creationists, they attack evolution.

Do you disagree with that observation? I can't believe you would.

Let's move on now.

 

[Edward]

Doulos:... It's when we close our minds off to being able to understand other people's perspective when we are then unable to relate to others and have fruitful discussions about matters where there isn't agreement. Politics is a good example of this in that neither side almost ever does a good job at representing the opposing view, and then use that misrepresentation to manipulate others to their viewpoint.

You seem to have a somewhat unique viewpoint about the theory of evolution. So we don't really know your perspective. I said something to you in one of these threads about how evolutionists believe that life evolved out of the sea and you said no, and wouldn't expound about your view. You obviously do not hold to the mainstream theory of evolution, then try to correct people but with out explanation...

It's like you're looking for people to say one particular thing, but don't explain in the least what you mean. Just basically, well you're wrong da da da. So what are looking for here?

The theory of evolution says life evolved out of the sea.

 

[Edward]

My last statement wasn't an observation of this thread in particular, though Creationists are attacking evolution in this thread despite it's stated purpose in the OP. However, my statement is a general observation about Creationists, they attack evolution.

Do you disagree with that observation? I can't believe you would.

Let's move on now.

I sort of disagree. It's not that the creationists said hey let's attack evolution...more along the lines of a thread which said, evolution is real...then creationists defended creationism. Perhaps a subtle point but accurate.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You seem to have a somewhat unique viewpoint about the theory of evolution. So we don't really know your perspective. I said something to you in one of these threads about how evolutionists believe that life evolved out of the sea and you said no, and wouldn't expound about your view. You obviously do not hold to the mainstream theory of evolution, then try to correct people but with out explanation...

It's like you're looking for people to say one particular thing, but don't explain in the least what you mean. Just basically, well you're wrong da da da. So what are looking for here?

The theory of evolution says life evolved out of the sea.

I don't really have a unique view of the Theory of evolution, here is what you said:

Then we were all bacteria and amoebas in the sea and sfter millions or billions of years fish grew and at some point decided that they wanted to go out onto the land so they went back into the sea for another million years while they grew legs and then came out and kept evolving and differentiating into different species and multiplying.

And my response is here:

This isn't really a description of evolution, but rather an inaccurate description of the history of life. Explaining evolution would be explaining the processes of how the diverse forms of life on this planet share common ancestry.

You are right that I didn't expound on how this was innaccurate, I didn't say that land animals didn't evolve from fish.

What I meant is that your caricature of the history of life was rather simplistic and I will show you why briefly.

1. Fish didn't decide to go on land millions of years prior. They weren't plotting to one day evolve the necessary muscles and traits to survive on land.
2. Natural selection works that a population of fish that had the capacity to survive on land would eventually populate land, as those unsuited to survive on land would not reproduce, and those suited to survive on land would.
3. This would be an advantage to the type of fish that could survive on land due to no predators and little competition for food as other creatures and plants had already started to inhabit the land.

These transitionary fish would not have lasted very long as more adapted species would drive out that initial population. We still see today in modern fish the key characteristics of how fish were able to survive on land, such as Lung fish which have to breath oxygen from the air.

 

[Edward]

I don't really have a unique view of the Theory of evolution, here is what you said:


And my response is here:

You are right that I didn't expound on how this was innaccurate, I didn't say that land animals didn't evolve from fish.

What I meant is that your caricature of the history of life was rather simplistic and I will show you why briefly.

1. Fish didn't decide to go on land millions of years prior. They weren't plotting to one day evolve the necessary muscles and traits to survive on land.
2. Natural selection works that a population of fish that had the capacity to survive on land would eventually populate land, as those unsuited to survive on land would not reproduce, and those suited to survive on land would.
3. This would be an advantage to the type of fish that could survive on land due to no predators and little competition for food as other creatures and plants had already started to inhabit the land.

These transitionary fish would not have lasted very long as more adapted species would drive out that initial population. We still see today in modern fish the key characteristics of how fish were able to survive on land, such as Lung fish which have to breath oxygen from the air.

yeah that's it. Well, when you said that really isn't a description of evolution it left the impression that you think something else.

So do you think that life came from the sea or not?

 

[Gary]

So do you think that life came from the sea or not?

Good question. I would be interested in hearing his answer also.

 

[Gary]

With regards to the Fossil Record, what is it in particular that you struggle with?

I don't struggle with any of it.

Do you accept the dating methods used? If not, why.

I don't know enough about them to pay them any kind of attention.

Do you believe Trilobites, Dinosaurs and Humans existed at the same time?

Yes I do.
.

 

[lordkalvan]

Nice try, but I have no expectation of a meaningful dialogue.

Thought as much.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I don't struggle with any of it.

I suppose that was a bad way to reference it with regards to you.

What about the fossil record makes you believe that the earth is very young and that evolution is false?

I don't know enough about them to pay them any kind of attention.

So this dating method which seems to disprove your world view as it pertains to the age of earth and the nature of life is just ignored? Are you interested in learning about it?

Yes I do.

Why do you believe this? What evidence do you have?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

yeah that's it. Well, when you said that really isn't a description of evolution it left the impression that you think something else.

The Theory of Evolution which I asked to be explained is not necessarily the history of life, but rather providing an explanation for how life diversified from a common ancestor and explaining the mechanisms that made that possible.

So do you think that life came from the sea or not?

Yes life came from the sea, and I told you which aspects of that section I disagreed with. No where did I state that I didn't think that land animals evolved from fish.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Great!
Next time a Muslim wants to discuss what we know about Islam in "Christianity and Other Religions" I'll look you up.

That would be fine, I would say I have a fair view of Islam as I have studied it a decent amount. I'm not originally a Christian, and I think that makes me more able to see eye to eye of people who have different world views then myself.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Bingo brother. But he doesn't want to have to defend or explain his position, just wants to correct others and...have them accept it. Which is...not right.

I have no problem defending or explaining my position, and I have done that many times on this board even recently in discussions with you. So for you to make this claim about me is rather odd.

No one has actually put in an honest effort to explain the Theory of Evolution, and I have corrected some half-hearted attempts. If you would like I can link scholarly articles which support corrections about the Theory of Evolution. I also think that you would agree that I understand much more about the Theory of Evolution than you, simply because I have studied it quite a bit and actually believe it, when you and the others here don't. I don't think that is an unfair assessment, or arrogant claim.

If you're a baseball fan and I'm not, you're naturally going to know more about baseball than me. Simple common sense.

Do you have any objections to any of my corrections regarding your characterization of the Theory of Evolution? If not, then why are you objecting to it not being right that I correct you?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the OP again:
"and these responses will be open to correction and clarification."

 

[Milk-Drops]

Duolous, it comes across as if you are baiting people. I can understand that you hold true to the concept of the scientific definition of the theory of evolution, but asking people to define it so you can correct them is a backwards approach. It would have been better if you would have stated your position at the beginning of the thread and then opened it up for discussion and seen where the trail went from there. Right now there is little to grasp for the sake of discussion.

Lets say we want to discuss how the theory impacted biology, we would first explain how we think and found through research how it impacted the field. Then we could explain its strengths and point out that we take this position because of x, y, and z. Then when someone inquires about the position or puts up a counter claim, we can then either link to more information or discuss it further.

To demand others give you a position to pick at is not inviting or a means to a healthy conversation.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Duolous, it comes across as if you are baiting people. I can understand that you hold true to the concept of the scientific definition of the theory of evolution, but asking people to define it so you can correct them is a backwards approach. It would have been better if you would have stated your position at the beginning of the thread and then opened it up for discussion and seen where the trail went from there. Right now there is little to grasp for the sake of discussion.

Lets say we want to discuss how the theory impacted biology, we would first explain how we think and found through research how it impacted the field. Then we could explain its strengths and point out that we take this position because of x, y, and z. Then when someone inquires about the position or puts up a counter claim, we can then either link to more information or discuss it further.

To demand others give you a position to pick at is not inviting or a means to a healthy conversation.

Hi Milk Drops, to be honest I don' think any method would work.

No one has really responded with any kind of real effort, so a discussion hasn't been possible. Correction leads to education, and I think you would agree that there are many people who don't understand much about the Theory of Evolution.

I thought that if I create a discussion that does not allow for criticism, but simply explanation and discussion then perhaps things will actually be clarified for people.

I don't think that there is really any scenario on this site that will likely create meaningful dialogue as people reject Evolution on faith in a literal interpretation of a text, and then use pseudo-science to back that up after the fact. This thread and many others is a demonstration of that.

 

[Edward]

I have no problem defending or explaining my position, and I have done that many times on this board even recently in discussions with you. So for you to make this claim about me is rather odd.

No one has actually put in an honest effort to explain the Theory of Evolution, and I have corrected some half-hearted attempts. If you would like I can link scholarly articles which support corrections about the Theory of Evolution. I also think that you would agree that I understand much more about the Theory of Evolution than you, simply because I have studied it quite a bit and actually believe it, when you and the others here don't. I don't think that is an unfair assessment, or arrogant claim.

If you're a baseball fan and I'm not, you're naturally going to know more about baseball than me. Simple common sense.

Do you have any objections to any of my corrections regarding your characterization of the Theory of Evolution? If not, then why are you objecting to it not being right that I correct you?

Perhaps it would be helpful if you read the OP again:
"and these responses will be open to correction and clarification."

Yeah sure, I believe that you know more about the theory of evolution than I do because you've embraced it and I haven't.

I do have objections to the way you layed this thread down. It's like milkdrops said below me. The way you did it is weird. I've asked you pointed questions about evolution before and you wouldn't answer or else just ignore the question, or say something like that isn't what they thread is about, it's about you explaining and me correcting you. That is the height of arrogance and pride.

You want to answer a simple question for me? Why is it called the theory of evolution if it has been been proven? Wouldn't it be the fact of evolution or simply evolution if it had been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt like you say?

And how about a simple yes or no to did life come from the sea? Will you just ignore that?

 

[Rick W]

I thought that if I create a discussion that does not allow for criticism

Within ToS 2.4
"but we prefer to keep threads as they have been defined in the OP (Original Post)."

The administrative staff will be addressing the issue of using the word "defined" as permission to create or augment the ToS by another set of rules as dictated by a member that must then be enforced by the moderating staff. The membership is not a legislative body of this site. That was not the intent. I should know. I was co-author of ToS 2.4
Be aware ToS 2.4 will be changed in the future and an announcement made as to the change.

 

[Edward]

Hi Milk Drops, to be honest I don' think any method would work.

No one has really responded with any kind of real effort, so a discussion hasn't been possible. Correction leads to education, and I think you would agree that there are many people who don't understand much about the Theory of Evolution.

I thought that if I create a discussion that does not allow for criticism, but simply explanation and discussion then perhaps things will actually be clarified for people.

I don't think that there is really any scenario on this site that will likely create meaningful dialogue as people reject Evolution on faith in a literal interpretation of a text, and then use pseudo-science to back that up after the fact. This thread and many others is a demonstration of that.

That's because evolution has been debunked. Even PHD's that were not Christians have stated that evolution was no possible. But you wont consider what those guys say, you just put em down and quote someone else that does say what you like to believe.

Correction does lead to education, but when people try to correct you, then you say it's an attack, but when you correct others, oh you're trying to help them and educate them. Your position and tactics are falling apart Doulos. They very things that you accuse others of doing...is what you're doing. You have a faith in certain scientists and then use their psuedo science to back it up...and continue to hold your position as a lofty one.

You know what? Bwahahahahahaha! That's funny.