|
Post by uncreative on Apr 24, 2024 22:59:08 GMT
I guarantee he doesn't believe a word of that. He's an upper class trust fund baby that knows better but he's pandering to the idiots who watch his show or listen to his podcast or whatever it is he's doing now.
|
|
|
Post by Hairynosedwombat on Apr 25, 2024 4:29:35 GMT
When the publishers of a creationist "textbook" are caught replacing every mention of "creationism" in the text with "intelligent design," that kind of gives the game away to anyone with half a brain.
I would think anyone familiar with these anonymous discussion boards would realize not everyone is who they claim to be. In the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover it is rather obvious the "Intelligent Design" side was not who they claimed to be. They were rather obviously about maintaining the filthy lie that evolution is not in the Bible. It is. What Jacob did could easily have happened in nature. In the centuries of various more or less witting attempts at breeding plants and animals before the Bible was written it must have occurred to someone that populations can change. There just were not any newspapers. There is therefore no "fixity of species" in the Bible.
Intelligent Design is not about evolution, but it is not opposed to it. It merely notes that evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules. There is your "natural selection" at work, genius.
Intelligent design is a direct descendent of creationism, invented specifically because various logical results of creationism are so stupid that it had to be hidden in a pseudoscientific cover. BTW your "before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules" makes no sense. Provide evidence for this throwaway claim. And lets note again: evolution makes no claim before life begins so it is essentially a deflection.
|
|
|
Post by jimmywynn on Apr 25, 2024 4:51:55 GMT
Given that fossilization is extremely rare, we're actually pretty lucky to have several examples in the fossil record of transitionalΒ fossils.
I'll never get the thinking of (usually Bible thumping) people who argue against evolution.
We've got plenty of examples of it when certain species get separated.......and time passes......and lo and behold, they take slightly different paths.
I think it just comes down to how the human brain just isn't all that good at recognizing massively large numbers..........whether it's the size of space or the passage of millions or even billions of years.
I went to Catholic school for 13 years and we were taught evolution, both in grade and high school.
|
|
|
Post by JHA Durant on Apr 25, 2024 4:55:19 GMT
He's a special kind of stupid.
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Apr 25, 2024 5:08:16 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world.
Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient.
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 25, 2024 5:13:37 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world. Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient. Not entirely true. The term evolution itself is a proven fact. Charles Darwins "theory of evolution by natural selection" often just shorted to "theory of evolution" is a theory (edit: because there is more processes defining evolution than just natural selection, such as genetic variability).
|
|
|
Post by san926f on Apr 25, 2024 5:14:30 GMT
10-1 Tuckie is a Flat Earther too Tuck is on the grift, so if that's his target audience, sure. Next up is an expose on the Earth only being 6,000 years old, and dinosaurs were on the Ark. They were baby dinosaurs, so that's how it worked. I said when he left Fox he should quit trying to be a political pundit and do something fun, like chasing urban legends. Big Foot, Yeti, Area 51. He could have his own series chasing UFO and ET sightings. It seems like there's been a lot of that in the news over the last year. Any of that would be more interesting than this tired pandering to the extreme evangelical right.
|
|
|
Post by san926f on Apr 25, 2024 5:27:55 GMT
Science and faith don't have to contradict each other. If your faith is so weak that scientific facts threaten it, I don't know what to tell you. Much of the Bible was not meant to be taken literally. Then there are books that are literal, and literally gave an ancient people not capable of understanding the concept of germs the tools they needed to stay clear of disease. The bottom line is is that it comes down to faith. You either believe it's divinely inspired or you don't.
|
|
|
Post by papamihel on Apr 25, 2024 5:30:20 GMT
Technically he is not wrong. The Evolutionary theory is, after all, a theory. It just happened that at the moment we have no better way of explaining the living world. Science is not religion. You are not supposed to believe in it. You are supposed to constantly question theories, try to improve them and strive for the truth - not a truth you find convenient. Not entirely true. The term evolution itself is a proven fact. Charles Darwins "theory of evolution by natural selection" often just shorted to "theory of evolution" is a theory (edit: because there is more processes defining evolution than just natural selection, such as genetic variability).
For starters, evolution cannot be a fact: it is a set of principles which attempts to explain how life appeared and developed on our planet. It is not a pinnacle of biology and not a definite answer to life. It is a work in progress. We tend to see it in terms of a conflict between evolutionism and creationism, but there is and has been plenty of criticism of the evolutionary theory from within the scientific community. There are plenty of holes in it. In short, we don't know enough. And that is something we all need to remember when we engage in arguments about highly politicized scientific theories.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 25, 2024 5:30:33 GMT
And Tucker Carlson is right. Glad we got that settled. Now I can eagerly await your next "progressive" thread. π
|
|
|
Post by furor teutonicus on Apr 25, 2024 5:42:24 GMT
Not entirely true. The term evolution itself is a proven fact. Charles Darwins "theory of evolution by natural selection" often just shorted to "theory of evolution" is a theory (edit: because there is more processes defining evolution than just natural selection, such as genetic variability).
For starters, evolution cannot be a fact: it is a set of principles which attempts to explain how life appeared and developed on our planet. It is not a pinnacle of biology and not a definite answer to life. It is a work in progress. We tend to see it in terms of a conflict between evolutionism and creationism, but there is and has been plenty of criticism of the evolutionary theory from within the scientific community. There are plenty of holes in it. In short, we don't know enough. And that is something we all need to remember when we engage in arguments about highly politicized scientific theories. We do know enough to consider evolution itself a fact, despite the views you choose on this. We observe it every day. The fact that there are Covid Boosters does not only make Sam very sad, it is due to evolution - an evolution of a virus that spans over rather short lifecycles and thus is in the limits of our possibility to observe. Where it moves towards a theory is when we talk about history and the long ago past, like dinosaurs, or human evolution over 100k of years. There is no certain chain of EXACT evidence there, but enough to make very fundamental conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 25, 2024 7:36:21 GMT
I would think anyone familiar with these anonymous discussion boards would realize not everyone is who they claim to be. In the case in Kitzmiller v. Dover it is rather obvious the "Intelligent Design" side was not who they claimed to be. They were rather obviously about maintaining the filthy lie that evolution is not in the Bible. It is. What Jacob did could easily have happened in nature. In the centuries of various more or less witting attempts at breeding plants and animals before the Bible was written it must have occurred to someone that populations can change. There just were not any newspapers. There is therefore no "fixity of species" in the Bible.
Intelligent Design is not about evolution, but it is not opposed to it. It merely notes that evolution cannot explain the origin of life. Before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules. There is your "natural selection" at work, genius.
Intelligent design is a direct descendent of creationism, invented specifically because various logical results of creationism are so stupid that it had to be hidden in a pseudoscientific cover. BTW your "before life begins smaller molecules have the competitive advantage over larger molecules" makes no sense. Provide evidence for this throwaway claim. And lets note again: evolution makes no claim before life begins so it is essentially a deflection. For a long time reasonably intelligent people thought that perhaps the components of RNA could build chains of RNA against the rule that things in lifeless nature break down. Crystals go against the rule but their activity is not in fact a reversal of entropy. Building a living thing requires enormous reversals of entropy. Laboratories have tried for decades to observe some sort of spontaneous construction involving existing very short RNA chains in the case they might construct something more. The problem appears to be that they also tear each other apart. A life process only works because it takes place in a highly protected environment. In the cold cruel world before several systems are in place to secure construction, disorder reigns as usual as predicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about an animal that is dying. It has everything it needs for life but one little detail. Why doesn't it just "jump" to the next step of life again? Like the last step in some construction from lifeless matter? Where is that last step? It cannot happen because the universe does not allow such construction. The universe is busy heading for entropy. Here is the math that explains what laboratories have observed for decades. Yes, there can be small, trivial reversals of entropy. There can be spontaneous construction. In mathematical language, "construction > 0." There is however more to the story. All the agencies of construction are also very much agencies of destruction. Mathematically, "destruction > construction." Those two facts combine to give a "limit" to construction the laboratory can observe. As construction proceeds the likelihood it gets broken increases. At some point the probability of destruction reaches "1" or absolute certainty. That is the limit observed in laboratories for decades. Case closed. If you still think this requires more "proof" you are too ignorant to have an opinion. Your understanding is not required. Your approval is not required. This discussion board is certainly not required. It is a fact that things die just like it is a fact that things fall by gravity. It is a fact that there is no agency of construction to be found in lifeless nature. You can accept this fact or you can be idiots.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Apr 25, 2024 7:42:28 GMT
Well he's pretty stupid then because you can see it happening in nature within a few years in some species.
|
|
|
Post by Olaf Plunket on Apr 25, 2024 7:49:07 GMT
Wow, and Iβve never seen a baby turn into an old man, therefore old men donβt begin life as babies.
Like you've never seen a god so there can't be one?
It could be more productive to focus on what you can see. You can see that there is a definite limit to "spontaneous construction." Where there are no agencies to continue construction it reaches a limit. Guess what? No living thing yet.
|
|
|
Post by dlancer on Apr 25, 2024 8:45:01 GMT
Not entirely true. The term evolution itself is a proven fact. Charles Darwins "theory of evolution by natural selection" often just shorted to "theory of evolution" is a theory (edit: because there is more processes defining evolution than just natural selection, such as genetic variability).
For starters, evolution cannot be a fact: it is a set of principles which attempts to explain how life appeared and developed on our planet. It is not a pinnacle of biology and not a definite answer to life. It is a work in progress. We tend to see it in terms of a conflict between evolutionism and creationism, but there is and has been plenty of criticism of the evolutionary theory from within the scientific community. There are plenty of holes in it. In short, we don't know enough. And that is something we all need to remember when we engage in arguments about highly politicized scientific theories. There are holes in the fossil record, but not holes in the theory of evolution.
People think that because it's "just a theory" it doesn't count as fact.
But it's a scientific theory that has survived testing, and it is a fact that it is the best answer we have.
There's no theory of creationism because it isn't even testable. It's unfalsifiable, which makes it pseudoscience.
|
|