Evolution: What is it? (long article)

Information Central ^ | Craig McClarren

[Doctor Stochastic]

Look it up in any astronomy book.

I did. You're wrong. The orbits of most planets are nearly circular. Please post the values you claim. If you cannot post such values, one must assume that you know not of what you speak.

Where did you go to school? You clearly do not know beans about astronomy.

[Dimensio]

You imply that you are disagreeing with me, but you are actually confirming my point. Evolution and common descent go hand in hand - unless of course you are asserting that there is a lot of evolution going on without new life forms arising. I am sure you are not saying such a thing so in spite of your hair-splitting my statement is correct.

I am not asserting that evolution is going on without new life forms arising. In fact, evolution requires that "new" life forms arise in the form of offspring. It does not, however, require that those "new" life forms are of a different species than their parents. In other words, evolution can occur within a species population without ever altering the organisms to the point where they become a new species -- it's still evolution.

Note that this does not, however, mean that evolution never results in the emergence of a new species.

[Dimensio]

I know of athiests with a well-developed sense of right and wrong. Ayn Rand comes to mind.

What a joke! What a lousy example! Ayn Rand cuckholded her husband with his closest friends. Her philosophy, like Darwin's shows a brutal disregard for the sick and the weak. No, there is nothing moral in the absolute selfishness that she proposed. Doing what one pleases is not a moral code.

Hasty Generalization fallacy.

[Dimensio]

Ach, I'm obviously out of it today. Since gore3000 was directly responding to the posited example of Ayn Rand, it isn't a fallacy for him to point out a disagreement in the contention that she is an example of an atheist with a developed sense of right and wrong. Mea culpa.

[BMCDA]

Your posts are colorful, but color doesn't add anything to the argument except schoolgirl charm.

But the blue color distinguishes them from other posts ;-D

[Dimensio]

" Oc course this doesn't prove god but only that a belief in a god (whether he exists or not) can restrain people from killing each other."

Never said that it proved that there is a God. However, I am glad you agree with me that atheism leads to immorality.

The statement "belief in god can prevent people from killing one another" does not logically imply that "atheism leads to immorality".

[Dimensio]

We also know quite well of the deeds and behavior of such atheists like Clinton, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin and numerous others. However that atheism is clearly an excuse for breaking the very moral code of the Ten Commandments and those of common morals is quite clear.

Ignoring a common cause fallacy. Hasty Generalization fallacy.

People who believe in the divine creation of life are much less likely to consider life valueless. People who believe that life came from God are much less likely to kill humans as if they were vermin than those who do not so believe.

Are you arguing that this statement, if true, somehow is evidence that your theology is true or are you just arguing a philisophical point?

The consequences of evolution, even if genuinely unfavourable, do not falsify evolution.

[PatrickHenry]

Since gore3000 was directly responding to the posited example of Ayn Rand, it isn't a fallacy for him to point out a disagreement in the contention that she is an example of an atheist with a developed sense of right and wrong.

His fallacy was in his ignorance of Miss Rand's life and philosophy. The affair she had was with her friend, not her husbands; and it was done with her husband's consent. If that's the only example of her lack of morals -- and I know of no others -- my use of Rand as a moral athiest still stands. Besides, there are many others, and it only takes one to blow away the contention that athiesm = no morality.

[Dimensio]

The affair she had was with her friend, not her husbands; and it was done with her husband's consent.

The problem is that sex outside of marriage, even when both spouses are aware and accepting of "open" relationships, is that it contradicts gore3000's personal sense of "morality" as defined by his religion. He can't comprehend that some people might not consider extramarital affairs that occur with the consent and understanding of both spouses and the additional partner where no one is physically or emotionally harmed and no agreements are violated isn't a "big deal". As such, since Ayn Rand's views on right and wrong don't match gore3000's -- even though his morality is derived from his religious beliefs and she did not share his religions beliefs -- she's a perfect example of "immorality"

[longshadow]

Besides, there are many others, and it only takes one to blow away the contention that athiesm = no morality.

It is also easy to blow away the contention that religion must = morality. You have an extensive list of names that refute it, I believe.

[longshadow]

All the orbits are elliptical as radio astronomer's post shows.

Come on; time's a'wasting.

I've already invited you TWICE to ping "RadioAstronomer" to see if he agrees with you that his data supports your ORIGINAL assertion that the planets have "wildly elliptical" orbits, but you've yet to ask him.

Why is that? You aren't a coward, are you? Just ask him.

[BMCDA]

I also thought it's somehow funny that he wrote that although he knows that I am an atheist. He could as well have written that I agree with him that I am an immoral person.

[RadioAstronomer]

I've already invited you TWICE to ping "RadioAstronomer" to see if he agrees with you that his data supports your ORIGINAL assertion that the planets have "wildly elliptical" orbits, but you've yet to ask him.

I will answer anyway. Referencing my earlier post which contained all of the planets eccentricities and the fact that a circle is an ellipse with the value of e = 0, I without reservation agree that all but two of the planets orbits are so close to circles that for all intent and purposes they can be considered near circular. The other two are quite mild and NONE of the planets fall within the term "wildly"!

[BMCDA]

Tsk, tsk I thought you know that every orbit with an eccentricity of e>0.01 is considered to be wildly elliptical by real astronomers ;-P

[RadioAstronomer]

Tsk, tsk I thought you know that every orbit with an eccentricity of e>0.01 is considered to be wildly elliptical by real astronomers ;-P

LOL! If that is wildly elliptical, I wonder what the term for a Molnia orbit would be! (maybe unbelievably?) :-)

[WhiteKnight]

His fallacy was in his ignorance of Miss Rand's life and philosophy. The affair she had was with her friend, not her husbands; and it was done with her husband's consent. If that's the only example of her lack of morals -- and I know of no others -- my use of Rand as a moral athiest still stands. Besides, there are many others, and it only takes one to blow away the contention that athiesm = no morality.

Sorry to throw my 2 cents in, but for once I agree with P.H.

Athiesm does not = no morality

I know several athiests and most have a sense of right and wrong. They just have no absolutes in their moral world.

Therefore: More accurately

Athiesm = Relative Morality

IMHO W.K.

[BMCDA]

No. The Molniya orbit is ludicrously elliptical but since you're not a real astronomer you couldn't know that ;-D

[PatrickHenry]

Planetary orbits are not scriptural. They are a Satanic lie.
</creationism mode>

[medved]

The consequences of evolution, even if genuinely unfavourable, do not falsify evolution.

Maybe not, but since evolution has been repeatedly falsified, you have to consider those consequences in determining whether you wish to appear (by continuing with the charade) merely stupid, or stupid and evil at the same time.

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry to throw my 2 cents in, but for once I agree with P.H.

This is rare indeed.

Athiesm does not = no morality
I know several athiests and most have a sense of right and wrong. They just have no absolutes in their moral world.

This site lists loads of atheists throughout history. There are some bad guys there (Karl Marx, Stalin, and Mao) for example) but all in all it's not a bad bunch. Famous Dead Non-theists .