Darwin's Doubt



Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
Interesting to look back at this thread that I started as a time when I still had respect for the old fraud.

 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
Interesting to look back at this thread that I started as a time when I still had respect for the old fraud.

More interesting would be where you quote me in Darwin or God context.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Interesting to look back at this thread that I started as a time when I still had respect for the old fraud.

I notice you have yet to put forward your theory.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Still not seeing any alternative to evolutionary theory put forward by Darwin's critic there.

Very, very unhappy clearly about Darwin's work but strangely reticent to offer a better explanation for evolutionary theory.

Someone buy the chap a ticket to the bloodstock sales. At least there he might get an inkling of just what he is up against and how much money rests on evolutionary theory there alone.

Try entering the fastest donkey you can find in the 2,000 Guineas next May. Evolutionary theory would play a major part in the result of that race.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
Not only is natural selection operating to reinforce positive mutations not the driving force of evolution, but Darwin's "tree of life" doesn't even exist.

darwin-tree-of-life-i-think-canvas.jpg

..n'existe pas.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
Not only is natural selection operating to reinforce positive mutations not the driving force of evolution, but Darwin's "tree of life" doesn't even exist.

darwin-tree-of-life-i-think-canvas.jpg

..n'existe pas.
Mm. What's your explanation for plant and animal diversity over time, then?
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
Not only is natural selection operating to reinforce positive mutations not the driving force of evolution, but Darwin's "tree of life" doesn't even exist.

darwin-tree-of-life-i-think-canvas.jpg

..n'existe pas.
Any link to where I've placed Darwin and God in opposition? It's just that, well, I asked some hours ago and you haven't come back to me yet.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
Any link to where I've placed Darwin and God in opposition? It's just that, well, I asked some hours ago and you haven't come back to me yet.
Keep checking back. Should be any time now.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
Keep checking back. Should be any time now.
So that's a no, then.

You attributed a view to me and extrapolated that into something else..

Except that I never expressed any such view.

I just want to make things clear.

Either you made a serious error or you lied.

Take your pick and 'fess up. It is a matter of integrity, credibility and honesty.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
So that's a no, then.

You attributed a view to me and extrapolated that into something else..

Except that I never expressed any such view.

I just want to make things clear.

Either you made a serious error or you lied.

Take your pick and 'fess up. It is a matter of integrity, credibility and honesty.
The collapse of your Darwinist ideology has nothing to do with pseudo-scientific attacks from creationist wingnuts.

Darwinism has collapsed under the weight of scientific evidence, much of it startling. Stuff that the old fraud could not have plagiarized because it could not have been dreamt of in the 19th century.

Therefore I would like to reaffirm that your “God vs Darwin” narrative is irrelevant, ignorant and imbecilic.

Reality is always more interesting than dumbed down Manichaean bullshît.

That I can tell you.
 
Last edited:

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
The collapse of your Darwinist ideology has nothing to do with pseudo-scientific attacks from creationist wingnuts.

Darwinism has collapsed under the weight of scientific evidence, much of it startling. Stuff that the old fraud could not have plagiarized because it could not have been dreamt of in the 19th century.

Therefore I would like to reaffirm that your “God vs Darwin” narrative is irrelevant, ignorant and imbecilic.
Again, demonstrate where I have expressed any such narrative. A simple link will suffice. This is the fourth time of asking.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,650
Twitter
No
The collapse of your Darwinist ideology has nothing to do with pseudo-scientific attacks from creationist wingnuts.

Darwinism has collapsed under the weight of scientific evidence, much of it startling. Stuff that the old fraud could not have plagiarized because it could not have been dreamt of in the 19th century.

Therefore I would like to reaffirm that your “God vs Darwin” narrative is irrelevant, ignorant and imbecilic.

Reality is always more interesting than dumbed down Manichaean bullshît.

That I can tell you.
So what's your favoured theory on diversity in global flora and fauna over time? What's the driver in your preferred theory?
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
I won't hold my breath.

One source referenced in the OP is an organisation promoting Intelligent Design. ID has been described as creationism in a tuxedo.

....

Ditto with evolution... No designer is needed.
Darwinists (and it’s idiot groupies) always attempt to “own” any evolutionary theory that does not involve “design”. The alternative to Darwinism is Godism in the fevered minds of these clowns.

That is the hallmark of pseudo-science. No falsifiable predictions. Ideology and ranting demagoguery instead.

8% of human DNA derives from viruses and bacteria. Such HGT is known to have been instrumental in the development of complex life.

Darwinists are scrambling to “own” this fact. For Darwinist charlatans, any fact that does not involve an Intelligent Creator was predicted by them even when it contradicts every utterance by the Old Fraud.

However HGTs contradict Darwinism at its most basic level. The notion of a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), perhaps the key tenet of neo-Darwinism, has bitten the dust.
 
Last edited:

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
Darwinists (and it’s idiot groupies) always attempt to “own” any evolutionary theory that does not involve “design”. The alternative to Darwinism is Godism in the fevered minds of these clowns.

That is the hallmark of pseudo-science. No falsifiable predictions. Ideology and ranting demagoguery instead.

8% of human DNA derives from viruses and bacteria. Such HGT is known to have been instrumental in the development of complex life.

Darwinists are scrambling to “own” this fact. For Darwinist charlatans, any fact that does not involve an Intelligent Creator was predicted by them even when it contradicts every utterance by the Old Fraud.

However HGTs contradict Darwinism at its most basic level. The notion of a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), perhaps the key tenet of neo-Darwinism, has bitten the dust.
I have repeatedly asked you to show where *I* have created such a dichotomy.

Repeatedly.

You have failed utterly in that regard.

Withdraw your claim.
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
4,656
I am drawn inevitably to the conclusion that Volatitre is lying. There is no other result to conclude.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,436
I have repeatedly asked you to show where *I* have created such a dichotomy.

Repeatedly.

You have failed utterly in that regard.

Withdraw your claim.
I have quoted you directly, you lying charlatan.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top