A little wisdom from an old man

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I never claimed any. I ask questions which the so-called experts cannot answer.
So you have no expertise, but know it's wrong. How do you know it's wrong, if you know nothing about it?

I do have a degree in Physics,
Really?
so I am well acquainted with the scientific method and its disuse in the field of evolution.
Are you a creationist? Creationists are well known for their disuse of the scientific method in just about any field.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
So you have no expertise, but know it's wrong. How do you know it's wrong, if you know nothing about it?

Where did I say it is wrong? I'm just not gullible. Evolution by natural selection, i.e. by an impersonal nature doing the selecting, I find to be bunk.


Yes, really.

Are you a creationist?

I believe God created the universe, the earth and everything in it, including mankind, all the beasts in the field, all the fish in the seas and the birds in the sky.

Creationists are well known for their disuse of the scientific method in just about any field.

If that is a requirement for being a creationist, then I am not one.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Where did I say it is wrong? I'm just not gullible. Evolution by natural selection, i.e. by an impersonal nature doing the selecting, I find to be bunk.
But you know nothing about it, and you've given no good reason to think it.
I believe God created the universe, the earth and everything in it, including mankind, all the beasts in the field, all the fish in the seas and the birds in the sky.
You may believe that, but you've given no good reason to show it.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
But you know nothing about it, .........

You mean other than what it professes to claim? Of course not. Nor do you. No one does. It's a speculative theory that has never been verified by observation.

You may believe that, but you've given no good reason to show it.

I do indeed believe it, and of course I, nor anyone can "show" our Creator creating. We can only see the results and intuit a Creator if we have any common sense.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
You mean other than what it professes to claim? Of course not. Nor do you. No one does. It's a speculative theory that has never been verified by observation.
This is a claim. Lets see some evidence for it.
I do indeed believe it, and of course I, nor anyone can "show" our Creator creating. We can only see the results and intuit a Creator if we have any common sense.
This is what you claim for evolution being false.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
This is a claim.

Correct.

Lets see some evidence for it.

How can there be evidence for lack of evidence?

This is what you claim for evolution being false.

I never said it was false. I said there is no evidence for nature selecting anything. I said that to me, the concept of anthropomorphizing nature is inherently foolish as well as unsupported by evidence. IF, I say IF we evolved, I believe God did the selecting, not impersonal nature. The very word "selection" implies some degree of intelligence.
 

treeplanter

Well-known member
I thought this was a pretty good rebuttal of many standard atheist points by a professor of mathematics at Oxford University:


And any CARM atheist is of course free to put Hitchens' rebuttal up, but as a side note, doesn't Lennox look like a relatively jolly fellow in contrast to Hitchens' usual surly demeanor? Reckon maybe their beliefs have something to do with that? (I apologize for the dumb title and childish shopped graphics added at the very beginning. That was not my doing.)
"Far from science showing God is not great, as Christopher Hitchens suggests..."
4:53 - 4:57

The good professor is clearly confused
{and assuming that the professor is correct about his interlocutor - Hitchens is also confused}

Science has nothing to do with God not being great
It's His morality - or lack thereof that negates greatness
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
I never said it was false. I said there is no evidence for nature selecting anything. I said that to me, the concept of anthropomorphizing nature is inherently foolish as well as unsupported by evidence.
No one is anthropomorphizing nature, and what you've said is simply wrong.
IF, I say IF we evolved, I believe God did the selecting, not impersonal nature. The very word "selection" implies some degree of intelligence.
We don't have to use the word selection. We don't have to use a word at all for what happens, we can just describe what happens, so there's no implication of intelligence just from the use of a word.
 
Last edited:

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No one is anthropomorphizing nature, and what you've said is simply wrong.

"Natural selection" would mean nature is selecting. Look up "anthropomorphize." Who or what are you claiming is doing the selecting?

We don't have to use the word selection.

Who's "we?" It's the phrase that Darwinists use.

We don't have to use a word at all for what happens, we can just describe what happens,

You mean what you SPECULATE, without evidence, happens.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Nature.

Maybe?

Of course, I'm not saying that nature makes a choice, it's just blind nature doing what it has to do.

As to the bear camouflage being just dumb luck, I think there's something more to it than that. Given evolution, I think it was inevitable that the coat would turn white, so it's not just dumb luck.

Again though, I am right on the limit of what I know, so further research on your part might be helpful.
I think the mutation is random. I'm not even sure the polar bear has a natural predator except for maybe man. So why does it even need a white coat?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I think the mutation is random. I'm not even sure the polar bear has a natural predator except for maybe man. So why does it even need a white coat?

I guess Mother Nature thought to herself, "I'm going to select some mutations that will ultimately turn this bear-like creature's great great great .......... great grandchildren white, to make it tougher for these homo erectus creatures to see them and shoot them in the snow, since I'm also selecting mutations to ultimately result in the homo erectus creature being intelligent enough to manufacture a gun."

Wow, Mother Nature must be a genius. Such impressive planning ahead.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
We don't have to use the word selection. We don't have to use a word at all for what happens, we can just describe what happens, so there's no implication of intelligence just from the use of a word.
I think Evolution is stuck with the term "natural selection." It's a misnomer.
 
The equivalent of "So's your old man." Need to work on that charisma, your highness. The emoji doesn't save it. Just draws attention to the unoriginality.
I'm afraid if my insults are too clever, they'll go over your head so I aim pretty low. Hope I didn't hit you in the can :ROFLMAO:
 
Top