ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

Information

ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN

We debate origins of the Universe, life, Earth, humans, religion, atheism, using common sense, evolution, cosmology, geology, archaeology, and other sciences, to repel biblical creationism and other religious beliefs.

Location: Oxford University, England
Members: 4141
Latest Activity: 1 hour ago

The portrait is Charles Darwin, age 31, in 1840

We welcome comments and the opening up of new discussions in this busy group. So join us if you are not already in the group.

N.B. At the end of every discussion page is a box that you can tick if you want to be notified by e-mail about the arrival of fresh comments.

Discussion Forum

Human Genome 45,000 years old reconstructed

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Čenek Sekavec 1 hour ago. 3 Replies

Human Genome 45,000 years old reconstructed

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden 4 hours ago. 0 Replies

Ebola Spreads to U.S.

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky 4 hours ago. 7 Replies

Knowledge and Atheism

Started by Madhukar Kulkarni. Last reply by Joseph P on Tuesday. 44 Replies

Ebola Evolution

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Monday. 5 Replies

Nose Nerve Cells Repair Man's Severed Spinal Cord

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by James M. Martin Oct 24. 2 Replies

A huge tragedy in our past

Started by Luara. Last reply by Tommy Tucson Oct 24. 9 Replies

Did Jesus Save the Klingons?

Started by Scott Bidstrup. Last reply by Jimmy McCann Oct 22. 8 Replies

Dunbar's number

Started by Rick Springfield Oct 5. 0 Replies

Leader of the Church of England doubts the existence of god

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Christopher Lowe Oct 4. 37 Replies

Limb Regeneration Ability

Started by Patricia. Last reply by The Flying Atheist Sep 28. 1 Reply

Scientific Adam and Eve

Started by Rick Springfield. Last reply by James M. Martin Sep 25. 26 Replies

Nazca Lines Found in Kazakhstan

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Joan Denoo Sep 25. 4 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of ORIGINS: UNIVERSE, LIFE, HUMANKIND, AND DARWIN to add comments!

Comment by Homer Edward Price on September 15, 2013 at 11:04am

The real controversy here is not about creationism, but about free will.  And I disagree that Darwinism is incompatible with free will.  The only version of Darwinism that is strictly deterministic is the "selfish gene" perspective of Richard Dawkins.  He argues that the individual gene, not the organism, is what evolves by natural selection.   Even if organisms--such as vertebrates--are conscious, genes are not.  And if genes drive behavior, there is no free will.  Few contemporary Darwinists accept the "selfish gene" perspective, and Daniel Dennett has concluded that even that is compatible with free will.

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 10:23am

"I think controversial means, among most people, not limited to the consensus among those with specialist training.  I believe I represent the majority better than those of you who have responded to my comment so far. Do you think I'm wrong?"

Yes, you're wrong.  People with no knowledge of the subject they're criticizing can have all sorts of crazy ideas that have long since been sorted out by the people who study the subject.  You've already demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of the theory.

The majority of uneducated people is not the group you should side with.

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 10:20am

Shaun Johnston:

"To them l think "emergent  properties" would smack of an appeal to magical thinking.  I am myself among that majority."

A majority of scientists who actually study this stuff and have a valid opinion, or a majority of people who make wild assumptions?

Comment by Joseph P on September 15, 2013 at 10:17am

Shaun, one person saying "Nuh uh," does not make a controversy.  The creationists use the same crap.  Show me scientists who study the subject and really know what they're talking about.  Convince them and get them to construct an alternate model, and then you might have your controversy.  Until then, not so much.

Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 15, 2013 at 2:13am

I just want to know how people can knowingly live a lie.

I guess it's like alcoholics, as long as they feel good...

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 15, 2013 at 1:57am

In my opinion, it is that they ARE decided and their misunderstanding is willful.

Comment by Robert Lanktree on September 15, 2013 at 1:32am

I don't see how these groups of undecided/misunderstanding people can debate things proven and happening right before our eyes, like for example, lately rattlesnakes have been found not to rattle, or at least a great many don't. Darwinian evolution suggested the survival of the fittest and the fittest rattlesnakes are those that don't rattle, thus preventing themselves from attention and likely death. Darwinian evolution is so brilliant and yet so simple it boggles the mind how so many just don't get it.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 10:38pm
No, you can't obtain acknowledgement of that from me. Science isn't a popularity contest. Those who find it implausible mearly lack understanding of it, perhaps there was a ball dropped educationally, but I think the fault is more on religions shoulders. I couldn't find with googling your source on those numbers, but I did find a 2012 Gallup pool which found 46% of Americans were biblical creationists, 32% were theistic evolutionists and only 15% accepted non-theistic evolution. I find the 32% somewhat encouraging, but even so. This is culture, not science. If 80% of Americans thought the world was flat and rode through the ether on the back of a giant turtle, that would not make the idea that the Earth is a spheroid floating in space controversial: it would just make them wrong.
Comment by Shaun Johnston on September 14, 2013 at 10:26pm

Clearly I'm unable to obtain acknowledgement that darwinism (which I elaborated as the modem synthesis) is thought implausible by  enough non creationists to make the subject of evolution controversial. So I am bowing out.

Comment by Dorian Moises Mattar on September 14, 2013 at 10:00pm

Shaun you are aware that you can't count on the opinion of an ignorant?

How much of the US population do you think are ignorant to biology?

Would you go to a barber for an opinion on a spinal cord injury?  I hope not.

Well guess what, we don't count on a hypothesis conjured up by none experts.

It's pointless.

 

Members (4140)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

Latest Activity

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service