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: 4136
Latest Activity: 5 hours 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

Ebola Spreads to U.S.

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by Larry yesterday. 1 Reply

Limb Regeneration Ability

Started by Patricia. Last reply by The Flying Atheist on Sunday. 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

A huge tragedy in our past

Started by Luara. Last reply by HPhan Sep 23. 7 Replies

Preying on our humanity

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Grinning Cat Sep 22. 3 Replies

New Mapping of Stonehenge

Started by Patricia. Last reply by Joan Denoo Sep 11. 1 Reply

Thigh Bone on Mars?

Started by John Jubinsky. Last reply by John Jubinsky Sep 11. 24 Replies

Where in the Universe is our Milky Way Galaxy?

Started by Dr. Terence Meaden. Last reply by Madhukar Kulkarni Sep 11. 3 Replies

DNA testing gives more history of paleo-Eskimos

Started by Sentient Biped. Last reply by Joan Denoo Aug 31. 1 Reply

Comment Wall

Comment

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

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.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 9:36pm
Yeah, Susan, my "creationist" bells have been ringing about him for a while (for example, by and large only creationsists use Darwinism these days), but I'm trying to take him at his word.
Comment by Susan Stanko on September 14, 2013 at 9:26pm

Shaun keeps saying that Evolution is false but, he has yet to provide any evidence for it.  (And, no Shaun, the fact that we don't have perfect knowledge is not evidence.)  I think I have sort of an idea where he gets the idea that the majority don't think evolution happened through Darwinian means.  He read the Origin of the Species and thinks that is all we know about evolution.  He, like creationists, does not seem to understand that evolution has changed since Darwin first proposed it.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 9:14pm
That's the problem Shaun. It DOES work. It works very well, in fact. Just look at modern medicine. And over and over, predictions made based on evolutionary theory are proven right and lead to more and more exciting discoveries! Heck, even that article Dorian sent me was made possible by evolutionary theory.

This "over half believe in non-supernatural means but only half in darwinian means" stat is new to me. What is your source?

Also, science does keep using a model as long as it keeps working until and unless something that works better comes along. But "working" does not mean "perfect."
Comment by Shaun Johnston on September 14, 2013 at 9:03pm

"... the majority have no idea what evolution is?  Yeah, we know that already and we know why." Are you sure you know why? Have you checked?  Can you appreciate that you don't sound very open to contrary opinion, so it seems unlikely you do know.

The majority opinion in the US (just over 50%) is that we evolved through non supernatural means. But only half of those people believe the mechanism was darwinism. So what do the others think?  You can ask me, I'm one of them. Just don't ask me for an alternative theory, we don't think science is  yet capable of coming up with one.

Chad, in this world, most people, once  they reject a theory because it seems implausible, just abandon it.  They don't act as if they have affection for the old theory and hang onto it out of sentiment. You may demand an alternative first, I, and most people, don't. We just say, it doesn't work and more on.

Comment by Chad Kreutzer on September 14, 2013 at 8:41pm
What evidence, Shaun? The burden of proof is on the upstart new hypothesis. And if it stands up to testing, it will become the new consensus. Or it will modify and be absorbed into the current one.
 

Members (4136)

 
 
 

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service