Originally posted by Forum NinjaOH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.
Sorry, my bad.You owned yourself twice.
One on illogical jargon and the second on ignorance.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
OH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.
You know what? Absolutely not. I've done it twice now. Even if I did prove you wrong, you'd just accuse me of trolling. I cannot win. Hopefully, our next discussion will be a more civil one.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
OH, I must have missed that lesson is my critical thinking class, please show me where my logic is wrong instead of just making dumb-ass claims. While you are at it please show me my ignorance in my second statement.
Da Pittman it seems you have a big pimple on your butt. 😉
Originally posted by Forum NinjaNo you have not, all you have done in this entire thread is nothing but accuse people of things, make general statements and claims and not one bit of reason. Hell even your first post to me was implying that I was an idiot and stay out of this thread so how I’m I not the only one not being civil or should I post your messages again?
You know what? Absolutely not. I've done it twice now. Even if I did prove you wrong, you'd just accuse me of trolling. I cannot win. Hopefully, our next discussion will be a more civil one.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
No you have not, all you have done in this entire thread is nothing but accuse people of things, make general statements and claims and not one bit of reason. Hell even your first post to me was implying that I was an idiot and stay out of this thread so how I’m I not the only one not being civil or should I post your messages again?
Honestly? You're doing nothing but trying to make me look bad for making a mistake. When I said stick to laughing, I implied you're a little better at being a funny guy than you are a debating one. I do not say that to be mean either. Here's why:
This would be the same as saying that Einstein shouldn't get credit for the Theory of Relativity because he didn't come up with Science, Math and all of that. Almost any theory that is out there and any science is based on something before it, almost nothing is completely new.
I) I never argued different.
II) You incorrectly read my statement and came up with an analogy that was miles away from what I said.
Basically, me saying Darwin's grandfather deserved credit translated to it being the same as saying (Going by your analogy) that Darwin should not get any credit due to the fact that evolutionary biology and science came before he did.
Also, I never implied that you were an idiot. You took what I said into a rotten context. I didn't want to spell it out for you earlier to save face.
I have nothing against you. I don't know you BUT if you're going to challenge what I'm saying without understanding it properly, what did you expect?
I really don't mean to insult or demean you. At all. That's not what I was aiming to do here. I don't want to cause bad blood over such a small misunderstanding.
If you motives are truthful then I will debate you but from what I read just in the first two post and how you responded after that before I even became involved read like a troll then someone that wanted to debate the topic at hand. I do not think it was just me that feels this way, I look back at this thread and see that in just first two page the topic was being debated back and forth, opinions from both sides were being expressed and posted and then you post this...
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
This is all largely nonsense anyways. Darwin's largest contribution to science was his theory of Natural Selection. He built upon an already existing theory. People tend to miss this largely.
Originally posted by inimalist
how is this different from any other scientific discovery?all scientists understand that their work is building off the shoulders of others.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Read the whole thread.
You really come off as a troll in this situation long before I came in, if you really wanted to come here to debate maybe you should change your methods.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
If you motives are truthful then I will debate you but from what I read just in the first two post and how you responded after that before I even became involved read like a troll then someone that wanted to debate the topic at hand. I do not think it was just me that feels this way, I look back at this thread and see that in just first two page the topic was being debated back and forth, opinions from both sides were being expressed and posted and then you post this...You really come off as a troll in this situation long before I came in, if you really wanted to come here to debate maybe you should change your methods.
No, I really wasn't trying to troll. Why are you bringing that up? It is irrelevant to what happened between me and you. You screwed up and joined in a debate with me not fully understanding my statement. You either didn't take the time to absorb the information or couldn't. Then, you have the gull to challenge me? After you made a mistake? Now, you're changing the subject and confronting me with a situation you weren't even involved in.
So who is really trolling here? I had the courtesy earlier to try and shrug it off, going as far as saying I wouldn't explain it to try and drop it. That is not what a troll does, Pittman.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
No, I really wasn't trying to troll. Why are you bringing that up? It is irrelevant to what happened between me and you. You screwed up and joined in a debate with me not fully understanding my statement. You either didn't take the time to absorb the information or couldn't. Then, you have the gull to challenge me? After you made a mistake? Now, you're changing the subject and confronting me with a situation you weren't even involved in.So who is really trolling here? I had the courtesy earlier to try and shrug it off, going as far as saying I wouldn't explain it to try and drop it. That is not what a troll does, Pittman.
Da Pittman has not been trollish at all. You should spend some time reexamining the way you communicate.
If you have a problem with my comment, please PM me. Lets see if we can get back on topic.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you have a problem with my comment, please PM me. Lets see if we can get back on topic.
^ That would have looked better like that. How have I been trolling when I was willing to step out earlier and HE pursued me and asked me to regurgitate what I had said earlier? Bias is terrible.
So if Darwin copied exactly what someone else theorized then yes it wouldn't be his theory, if he took an idea that someone had and expanded on it can came up with his own conclusion then that would be his theory. It wouldn't make a difference if someone else came up with the idea first and he/she went off that idea and created their own theory. The idea of Evolution has been around a lot longer than Darwin but this is HIS theory, he wrote his words about it and used his conclusions.
As for it being Darwinism some do hold it to a "religious" standard but I think that would be against the very nature of it.
An interesting article, dealing with some conspiracy-esque claims that Darwin didn't actually come up with the idea of evolution first. It lays it to rest quite soundly.
I also disagree with the thread's premise, btw. It's main premise seems to be that Newtonian physics is used to distinguish it from another kind of physics, and therefore 'Darwinian evolution' implies a different kind of evolution, which is just patently silly. No such thing need be implied simply because it does in another instance. Are we creating a lexical rule based on a single example?
That creationists try to make it into a negative term is also no reason to drop it. Creationists would turn any buzzword into something negative to bolster their cause. Removing the label Darwinism would just force them to do the same thing to a different word or term.
As it is, Darwinism has been used for decades now as a commonly-accepted term that conveys a clear idea to those who encounter it. It's perhaps a needless label, sure, but also not a harmful one...or no more harmful than any other distinction would be. And beyond that, Darwin's original theory has been heavily modified and added to in the years since its inception, but the core elements (gradual differentiation via natural selection, divergence of species, etc.) remain intact. Therefore, it is not even a term that is misleading, for it does not point us to an archaic theory that has been disproven, but to a few basic principles that have since been broadened and supported with mountains of evidence.
Originally posted by Digi
It's main premise seems to be that Newtonian physics is used to distinguish it from another kind of physics,
also, the distinction between Newtonian and Quantum physics is not one that exists in reality, but more is illustrative of the fact we, as human scientists, do not have a theory that is able to unite both of these systems.
Newtonian refers more to which equations we use when observing actions, rather than a different type of physics.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😕 I'm doing the opposite. I'm over defining, and eliminating terms that are used by "the enemy". This limits me, but I don't see how it leads to confusion.
Then obviously you're blocking out the explanations given by Digi and myself that point out not only why you proposal would be confusing and ineffective but is also blatantly inaccurate.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then obviously you're blocking out the explanations given by Digi and myself that point out not only why you proposal would be confusing and ineffective but is also blatantly inaccurate.
No, I simply don't agree. The only point were I do agree is what I said before.
Re: There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution'
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is no such thing as 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution'In short, it's time to put Charles Darwin in his place, with all due respect, and accept that his theory has evolved.
What do you think?
Darwinism today is just that part of science that will not ever even consider the possibility of an intelligent influence in the creation of life.
Darwinism has not much to do with darwin anymore: Its Atheism and all the scientific theories that fall into that category and explain the existence of life.