₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Which equivalent does any scientific field have? Is evolution a replacement for God according to your understanding? Is that why you see it as a religion?

Is evolution science?

LordReed:
I thought he would take a hint when I brought up the Bible justifying racism. He can arrive at the conclusion that the Bible does not teach racism but cannot for evolution, a crying shame for the limits of his rationality.

Take a hint? Don't make me laugh! This is his umpteenth thread promoting his ignorance about evolutuon so I doubt he ever can take a hint.

DoctorAlien:
Is evolution science?

What is it to you alien? Did you learn your evolution in religion class? That would explain your ignorance despite being repeatedly educated about it.

budaatum:
What is it to you alien?

A philosophy which is an outgrowth of Naturalism.

Did you learn your evolution in religion class?

No, thankfully.

That would explain your ignorance despite being repeatedly educated about it.

Yes, including all the PhD scientists who don't see evolution as science.

"For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

Source

“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Source

DoctorAlien:
Yes, including all the PhD scientists who don't see evolution as science.

I see you deny all the evidence presented to the contrary? Did we not debunk your anti-evolution "PhD scientists" already by showing you none of them got their PhDs in evolution science or even practise science, or do you just wish to rehash the same old lame ignorance and waste everyone's time?

budaatum:
I see you deny all the evidence presented to the contrary? Did we not debunk your anti-evolution "PhD scientists" already by showing you none of them got their PhDs in evolution science or even practise science, or do you just wish to rehash the same old lame ignorance and waste everyone's time?

"evolution science" sounds so much like "creation science".

DoctorAlien:
"For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

Source

“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Source

DoctorAlien:
"For example, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.”

—Mayr, Ernst (1904–2005), Darwin’s Influence on Modern Thought, based on a lecture that Mayr delivered in Stockholm on receiving the Crafoord Prize from the Royal Swedish Academy of Science, 23 September 1999; published on ScientificAmerican.com, 24 November 2009.

Source

“If a moving automobile were an organism, functional biology would explain how it is constructed and operates, while evolutionary biology would reconstruct its origin and history—how it came to be made and its journey thus far.”

—Wilson, E.O. (1929– ), From so Simple a Beginning, p. 12, Norton, 2006.

Source

Is geology science? Is astrophysics science?

LordReed:
Is geology science? Is astrophysics science?

Don't try to shift the goalposts. We all know that in this discourse, there are only two opposing ideas: creationism vs evolutionism (which is an outgrowth of naturalism). Christians don't oppose geology or astrophysics. But we oppose evolutionary ideas.

DoctorAlien:
Don't try to shift the goalposts. We all know that in this discourse, there are only two opposing ideas: creationism vs evolutionism (which is an outgrowth of naturalism). Christians don't oppose geology or astrophysics. But we oppose evolutionary ideas.

The only opposing idea here is, the desire to remain stupid and ignorant, and the use of one's brain.

Not all Christians oppose evolution!

budaatum:
The only opposing idea here is, the desire to remain stupid and ignorant, and the use of one's brain.

Ad hominem. Very logical argument.

DoctorAlien:
Ad hominem. Very logical argument.

You don't know what a logical argument is, alien. We've after all pointed out your illogicality in all your threads to no avail.

DoctorAlien:
Don't try to shift the goalposts. We all know that in this discourse, there are only two opposing ideas: creationism vs evolutionism (which is an outgrowth of naturalism). Christians don't oppose geology or astrophysics. But we oppose evolutionary ideas.

The only person shifting goalposts here is you. You accept geology and astrophysics even though they don't conduct experiments but you reject evolution for the same reason. You defend your Bible as not supporting racism but declare evolution as the bedrock for racism even though it does not make any such declarations. You really should take your own advice.

budaatum:
Take a hint? Don't make me laugh! This is his umpteenth thread promoting his ignorance about evolutuon so I doubt he ever can take a hint.

Like I said my dear buda, a crying shame.

LordReed:
The only person shifting goalposts here is you. You accept geology and astrophysics even though they don't conduct experiments but you reject evolution for the same reason. You defend your Bible as not supporting racism but declare evolution as the bedrock for racism even though it does not make any such declarations. You really should take your own advice.

Lol. I know at least a PhD geologist and a PhD astrophysicist who are creationists. All they have encountered in their study in those fields have not convinced them to believe in evolution. Could it be that the idea of evolution is not as essential as it seems in those fields?

I don't have the time to dwell on whether geologists and astrophysicists conduct experiments or not. However I believe it is not hard at all to get what Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson were trying to say.

DoctorAlien:
Lol. I know at least a PhD geologist and a PhD astrophysicist who are creationists. All they have encountered in their study in those fields have not convinced them to believe in evolution. Could it be that the idea of evolution is not as essential as it seems in those fields?

I don't have the time to dwell on whether geologists and astrophysicists conduct experiments or not. However I believe it is not hard at all to get what Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson were trying to say.

Talk about goalpost shifting, you continue to hypocritically do so. Who said anything about evolution being essential in geology or astrophysics? Gosh you are terrible.