Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

Poem said:
Is it foolish or moronic to use the term 'Darwinism'?
Click to expand...
Neither, in my opinion. It just indicates that you are coming from a creationist viewpoint. It is possible that if you dig long enough, you can find somebody who is not a creationist, or is arguing with creationists 😉, but the the use of the term is still a ‘tell’.
 
steenkh said:
Neither, in my opinion. It just indicates that you are coming from a creationist viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I think you mean creationist context - we know that Michael Ruse was defending Darwinism.
steenkh said:
It is possible that if you dig long enough, you can find somebody who is not a creationist, or is arguing with creationists 😉, but the the use of the term is still a ‘tell’.
Click to expand...
Clearly not (I mentioned Denis Noble) but if Evolutionary Theory is preferred then I'm fine with that.
 
Poem said:
You seriously expect me to respond to you after our previous exchange? I asked you if you were a Christian and you responded with:

If you want to talk to actual Christians, go find some actual Christians to talk to. Stop sniffing around my door, hoping I'll throw you a bone you can gnaw on, just because Foyle said "look over there!"

You are not posting in good faith.
Click to expand...
I apologize. I have a strong distaste for making my personal life a matter of rhetorical debate. You pushed, I lashed out.

And you're still making excuses instead of answering direct questions and getting to your point.
 
theprestige said:
I apologize.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
theprestige said:
I have a strong distaste for making my personal life a matter of rhetorical debate. You pushed, I lashed out.
Click to expand...
It was a straightforward question....maybe there is too much toxicity on ISF.
theprestige said:
And you're still making excuses instead of answering direct questions and getting to your point.
Click to expand...
It is really no big deal. It was pointed out that Christians do not speak as one when responding to questioning. I merely pointed out that evolutionary biologists do not speak as one either.

They are related because they both proffer an explanation for life.

I'm happy to move on...though without a Christian in sight I guess it's not going to happen.
 
I don't care about your nonsense rhetorical questions. It has nothing to with your OP. If you want to discuss a difference in science, do that. Quit arguing about labels.
 
Poem said:
What was weird about The Third Way - a website dedicated to evolution?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it "weird," but I'd call it fringe...

The Third Way of Evolution
The TWE consists of a group of researchers who provide a middle path "Third Way" alternative to creationism and the modern synthesis. The TWE predicts that the modern synthesis will be replaced with an entirely new evolutionary framework.
In 2023 only a minority of evolutionary biologists currently support the TWE.
Click to expand...

Evolution News, an ID website, characterizes it this way...
The site [ed. The Third Way] gives its “rationale” as follows:
The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

That second sentence could be more accurately formulated: One way, very loosely speaking, that includes Biblical creationism and the scientific theory of intelligent design either insists on (in the case of creationism) or (in the case of ID) sees no grounds in biology for ruling out the possibility of guidance by a creator or designer outside nature.
Click to expand...

A Critique of the Third Way
Recent critics have consciously or unconsciously exaggerated the long-lasting influence of the MS on contemporary evolutionary biology and have underestimated many post-Synthesis developments, particularly Neutral Theory, evolutionary quantitative genetics and the power and generality of the Price Equation.
Critics have also painted a biased picture of the MS as a more monolithic research tradition than it ever was and have downplayed the pluralistic nature of contemporary evolutionary biology, particularly the long-lasting influence of Sewall Wright with his emphasis on gene interactions and stochasticity. I argue that
some of the criticisms of the MS and contemporary evolutionary biology are primarily meta-scientific, revealing the underlying identity politics of critics when pushing their alternative research agendas.
Click to expand...
 
I'd like to know what modern synthesis vs natural selection has to do with CS Lewis and the resurrection?

Let me say this about both these topics. One is discussing science and reality. The other is discussing a 2000 year old fairy tale.

Modern Synthesis is sort of a catch all term that combines some of the findings of Darwin, Mendel and hundreds of others. None of the individuals other than morons are advocating Intelligent Design. They are discussing how much of evolution is a reaction to the environment ie: natural selection and how much is the result of other factors.

What I find interesting, is why Poem feels the need to use the term Darwinian and Darwinism and also quote ID proponents? Why does he keep alluding to them? I'm not a biologist. I could care less about the intricacies of evolution. I can accept that Darwin, Huxley, Mendel, Wilson, Watson, Crick all made contributions to understanding the diversity of life. And that Michael Behe, Moses and Adam made none other to present incorrect explanations.
 
Last edited:
I agree, telling us what point they are trying to make in regard to the opening post would be rather productive if they wanted a discussion, at the moment their behaviour indicates they do not want a “good faith” discussion.
 
The impression I get is not that Poem is discussing in bad faith, but that these metaphysical threads kind of drift around by nature. Poem.is open ended on a bunch of the topics as they organically arise, and wants to kick the ideas around, not entrench on a stance and do battle.
 
Thermal said:
The impression I get is not that Poem is discussing in bad faith, but that these metaphysical threads kind of drift around by nature. Poem.is open ended on a bunch of the topics as they organically arise, and wants to kick the ideas around, not entrench on a stance and do battle.
Click to expand...
Do you know what his point is?
 
"And by the way, you know, when you're telling these little stories? Here's a good idea: have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!"
Steve Martin Planes, Trains and Automobiles
 
Last edited:
Poem said:
For what reason?

Is Denis Noble also foolish for declaring that 'Neo-Darwinism is dead'?
Click to expand...
Because it's a term that creationists use, and by using it, someone gives the impression of being a creationist.

And yeah, a little bit, because it gives fuel to creationists.
Poem said:
Is 'evolutionary theory' out too?
Click to expand...
Preferably, yes. It's not a theory. It's just biology. It's how biology and reproduction works.
steenkh said:
Neither, in my opinion. It just indicates that you are coming from a creationist viewpoint. It is possible that if you dig long enough, you can find somebody who is not a creationist, or is arguing with creationists 😉, but the the use of the term is still a ‘tell’.
Click to expand...
I would be willing to grant that Poem might be an ex-creationist, and just doesn't know any other ways to talk about it.
Poem said:
I think you mean creationist context - we know that Michael Ruse was defending Darwinism.

Clearly not (I mentioned Denis Noble) but if Evolutionary Theory is preferred then I'm fine with that.
Click to expand...
How about just biology?
 
arthwollipot said:
Because it's a term that creationists use, and by using it, someone gives the impression of being a creationist.
Click to expand...
And I have repeatedly pointed out that evolutionists use it.
arthwollipot said:
And yeah, a little bit, because it gives fuel to creationists.
Click to expand...
Which you haven't shown.
arthwollipot said:
Preferably, yes. It's not a theory. It's just biology. It's how biology and reproduction works.
Click to expand...
Those biologists you would endorse use the phrase:
But we do not think that these processes deserve such special attention as to merit a new name such as ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’. Below we outline three reasons why we believe that these topics already receive their due in current evolutionary theory.
(Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues).

There is more than one meaning of 'theory'.
arthwollipot said:
I would be willing to grant that Poem might be an ex-creationist, and just doesn't know any other ways to talk about it.
How about just biology?
Click to expand...
Interesting speculation - but that is all it is and it's pointless. What matters are facts -- not opinions or beliefs.

Your response to my 'Are you a Christian'?
arthwollipot said:
Does it matter? .......................
Click to expand...
is looking pretty insincere right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom