6 of 10
6
Great Resources for Info on Evolution and Darwin (Merged)
Posted: 20 November 2012 07:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 05:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3328
Joined  2011-11-04
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

That book appears to be a nice attempt to convert young earth creationists to theistic evolutionists, by using scientific explanations. But it would probably work on only a small fraction of creationists.  Out of (what to me seems an incredible number) the existing creationists in the U.S., most of them probably hold the belief, not because they can’t understand the science of evolution.  Their chosen beliefs are based, rather, on cultural pressures that creationism is “good” and anything that undermines it is “evil”. 

Perhaps a more direct attempt to convince these believers would be more effective., i.e., a well presented proposal that belief in “God using evolution as a fundamental process in his creation of the universe” is not evil at all, but indicative of God’s good and Holy Wisdom.  (I know this may seem a bit disingenuous.  I’m just saying it might be more effective.)

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

If God was behind evolution, then what would be natural selection doing? You can either paint like God, say, like Rembrandt, or you can paint like natural selection, like Pollock. Big difference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2012 07:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3328
Joined  2011-11-04
George - 30 November 2012 06:11 PM

If God was behind evolution, then what would be natural selection doing? You can either paint like God, say, like Rembrandt, or you can paint like natural selection, like Pollock. Big difference.

I wasn’t suggesting being logical. I was suggesting a way to influence religious believers to move away from the most preposterous position of young earth creationism.  I don’t think logic or science will influence those who believe in young earth creationism, as long as they feel that it is evil to seriously consider the science of evolution.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2012 06:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  123
Joined  2012-11-15
TimB - 30 November 2012 05:19 PM
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

That book appears to be a nice attempt to convert young earth creationists to theistic evolutionists, by using scientific explanations. But it would probably work on only a small fraction of creationists.  Out of (what to me seems an incredible number) the existing creationists in the U.S., most of them probably hold the belief, not because they can’t understand the science of evolution.  Their chosen beliefs are based, rather, on cultural pressures that creationism is “good” and anything that undermines it is “evil”. 

Perhaps a more direct attempt to convince these believers would be more effective., i.e., a well presented proposal that belief in “God using evolution as a fundamental process in his creation of the universe” is not evil at all, but indicative of God’s good and Holy Wisdom.  (I know this may seem a bit disingenuous.  I’m just saying it might be more effective.)

I agree. Convincing hardcore creationists is almost impossible. I tried dozens of times in various forums and haven’t succeed in a single case. Frustrating. But there’s this large group of believers and believers with doubts age 15 - 25 who are still searching, who are still asking questions. They haven’t made up their mind. They meet creationists and are not convinced by the creationists’ arguments without having good counterarguments. Miller’s book might help here.

Were you able to change a creationist’s mind by using your “God using evolution as a fundamental process in his creation of the universe” is not evil at all, but indicative of God’s good and Holy Wisdom?

I’ve also heard the slogan “Evolution is creation in progress”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2012 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
erasmusinfinity - 23 April 2008 09:53 AM

Great.  I figured that since, being atheists, we all worship Darwin… We are Darwinists, right?  LOL

Atheists don’t worship anyone or anything.  That’s the point!

We accept hard evidence and reject baseless explanations and we appreciate people who have devoted their lives to discovering the truth about our universe and humanity.  If you call that worship you have a very odd definition of it.  You sound like a theist in atheist clothing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 December 2012 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3063
Joined  2010-04-26

That post is 4 years old.  You’re lecturing a ghost.  Or a zombie.  Whichever.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2014 08:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2014-11-21
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

Evolution, without DNA is not possible, as DNA is the tool that creates the changes to the organism that equate to evolution.  There really is nothing to disagree with here, so where did the DNA come from?  Darwinism tells us that it spontaneously generated, which makes about as much sense as the operating system of your computer, forming in a warm pond from random elements.

Yes this is the core of Darwinism.

 Signature 

When the Earth was first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, the Universe was already at least 8 billion years old, thus we are very young indeed.
Since DNA is now being used for binary code storage, does this mean that Windows 9 could be downloaded to your thumbs drive?
Think

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2014 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  365
Joined  2014-03-12
coral star - 23 November 2014 08:19 PM
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

Evolution, without DNA is not possible, as DNA is the tool that creates the changes to the organism that equate to evolution.  There really is nothing to disagree with here, so where did the DNA come from?  Darwinism tells us that it spontaneously generated, which makes about as much sense as the operating system of your computer, forming in a warm pond from random elements.

Yes this is the core of Darwinism.

Deluded simpleton.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2014 09:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  223
Joined  2014-11-21
Handydan - 23 November 2014 08:23 PM
coral star - 23 November 2014 08:19 PM
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

Evolution, without DNA is not possible, as DNA is the tool that creates the changes to the organism that equate to evolution.  There really is nothing to disagree with here, so where did the DNA come from?  Darwinism tells us that it spontaneously generated, which makes about as much sense as the operating system of your computer, forming in a warm pond from random elements.

Yes this is the core of Darwinism.

Deluded simpleton.

Is that your answer as to how evolution predates the DNA that is now known to control evolution?

?

 Signature 

When the Earth was first formed some 4.5 billion years ago, the Universe was already at least 8 billion years old, thus we are very young indeed.
Since DNA is now being used for binary code storage, does this mean that Windows 9 could be downloaded to your thumbs drive?
Think

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2014 10:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6162
Joined  2009-02-26
coral star - 23 November 2014 09:26 PM
Handydan - 23 November 2014 08:23 PM
coral star - 23 November 2014 08:19 PM
dansmith62 - 20 November 2012 07:19 AM

If you want to add a book on your list that can help convince theists that Darwin is right, I recommend Kenneth R. Miller’s book. He’s a cell biologist and molecular biologist at Brown university. Here’s a review highlighting his main arguments:

http://energion.com/books/reviews/finding_darwin.shtml

Evolution, without DNA is not possible, as DNA is the tool that creates the changes to the organism that equate to evolution.  There really is nothing to disagree with here, so where did the DNA come from?  Darwinism tells us that it spontaneously generated, which makes about as much sense as the operating system of your computer, forming in a warm pond from random elements.

Yes this is the core of Darwinism.

Deluded simpleton.

Is that your answer as to how evolution predates the DNA that is now known to control evolution?

?

CS, in order to prove your hypothesis of Intelligent Design, you are trying to come through the backdoor with an argument of “irreducible complexity”. But you are not looking deep enough and that makes your argument another “argument from ignorance” (look up its meaning).
Hence the caustic response.

If you dig a little deeper you will find that eventually you end up with non-biological chemicals from which RNA and later DNA are composed.

The 1982 discovery of ribozymes demonstrated that RNA can be both genetic material (like DNA) and a biological catalyst (like protein enzymes), and contributed to the RNA world hypothesis, which suggests that RNA may have been important in the evolution of prebiotic self-replicating systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme

and

Prebiotic,  adjective,
 
1.of or pertaining to chemicals or environmental conditions existing before the development of the first living things.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prebiotic

and

Keywords

•chemical evolution
•prebiotic organic reactions
•gas-phase prebiotic reactions
•prebiotic reactions in the aqueous phase
•prebiotic reactions in the solid state
•energy sources on the primitive earth
•electrical discharge as a source of energy
•mineral catalysis
•chemicals from meteorites
•chiral selection

http://www.mdpi.com/journal/life/special_issues/Prebiotic_Chem

As earlier you dismissed Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, let me remind you that the scientific references used in Wikipedia, are from reliable (scientific) sources. All you need to do is follow the links.

Therefore, in a final attempt to stimulate “critical thinking” (and thorough research) on your part, I, for one, am not going to respond to your arguments further, unless you can provide reliable information that supports your assertions. Perhaps you are not aware that all the arguments you are using have been used “ad nauseam” before and have been resolved over and over again.

[ Edited: 23 November 2014 11:25 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2014 04:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2011-08-15

Evolution, without DNA is not possible, as DNA is the tool that creates the changes to the organism that equate to evolution.  There really is nothing to disagree with here, so where did the DNA come from?  Darwinism tells us that it spontaneously generated, which makes about as much sense as the operating system of your computer, forming in a warm pond from random elements.

No, “Darwinism” as you call it does not and never did. BTW you’re referring to the process as if it was a philosophy and not a scientific theory. This may sound like nit picking but it appears to be the crux of your argument. Darwin had no knowledge of DNA (Read the “Origin of the Species; you won’t find it) although it was hinted at in 1869 by a German biologist. Darwin did know and discuss the process of evolutionary alterations over generations so no, he didn’t even allude to the concept of “spontaneous generation” postulated by earlier ancient philosophers. And please don’t trot out the worn out cliche of the “airplane in a tornado” analogy either. It’s been done to death as well. Oh, that and bat wings as well.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2014 05:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

Your question, “where did DNA come from” could actually be a normal, legitimate question, but for a couple things. 1) Why are you asking it here? On an old thread on a CFI site? Why not look it up on the resource the thread provides? 2) Your wording sounds more like a challenge. Like if we can’t answer it, evolution is disproven.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2014 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4860
Joined  2007-10-05

Coral Star is also using the tired god-of-the-gaps argument and refusing to address anything we have pointed out. Debating such people is pointless. They know what they like and like what they know.

[ Edited: 24 November 2014 09:40 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2014 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21

I wouldn’t mind if coral showed any sincerity. When I realized I had not been using reasonable assumptions most of life I also realized that I had not developed my own sense of what evolution is (as well as other non-scientific thinking). I saw the PBS series on the Dover PA trail, which did include scientific testimony, then I downloaded the Kansas school hearing, which did not. Scientists refused to participate in another trail because it gave the appearance the creationist had a real argument. After several hours of listening to only their side I was more confused. That’s when I discovered the link to Talk Origins given on pg 1 of this thread.

Long story short coral, click that link, read what it says. If you still have questions, refer to what is said in that link that you still don’t agree with. Then I might respond to you.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 10
6