My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

Do you believe in Darwinian evolution?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 32 34.8%
  • Unsure

    Votes: 7 7.6%
  • Need more information

    Votes: 7 7.6%

  • Total voters
    92

jvarnell

Premium Member
Yes you are getting a bit of a lecture on science, because you don't understand the basics, you clearly have done some reading, but you also clearly do not have the basic background to actually understand it. I am not claiming I have all the information, and I have no doubt you know a lot that I don't on a whole ton of subjects. However you have made it abundantly clear that on this subject you are not knowledgeable. You claim no one can prove there are no gaps in the chain of life, yet you clearly have no formal science background. That seems a little arrogant to me, I would certainly not ever claim that no one could prove there are no gaps in string theory, because I don't have enough knowledge of that faucet of physics. As for your opinion, you are free to have your own opinion, no one is forcing you not to, however when you make claims about things that simply are not true (such as what constitutes a theory in science) expect to be corrected.
I understand a lot more than you know and also would say that all data about a subject should always be questioned. When you quit questioning data you have lost your path to new discovery. All discovery is started by questioning theroies others have had. Science is a building process that begins with a question. Untill all questions are answered (on gaps) a theory is not fact. There has to be some truth in it for theory to form but saying something is " simply are not true" is odd to me, you or I can't know the truth we can only come up with a theory of what the truth is.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
After thinking about this all night I decided to say one thing why I am so adamit about theories. It is because I am in the middle of a project to model one small part of human behavior using a SOM self organizing.map modifyed by a swarm programing algorithm. A theory limit data used in it because of the massive amount of data. It is one persons idea on how to limit that data. I am using a hadoop data base stopped that limitation in this data base so the is all there for the outcome to change as perseptions do. I know my spelling turn off so many of you but as person the has ssavant tendencies spelling is just little crap I don't care about. I say look at the data and use what you want but always keep an eye on all the other data that lurks close by.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
I love it being lectured on how science works. I also know when people don't understand that they can't force someone else to have the same opion as they, they will start telling how wrong they are without thinking of what the other person may know that they don't. I have a lot more knowlage on many subject than you will ever know.

Perhaps, but you must admit that your steadfast refusal to demonstrate any of that knowledge is... confusing.
 

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
Watched a great video with Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson. He was chastising atheists for their insistence on their a-holery toward "believers". Dr. Tyson pointed out that 7% of elite scientists are believers and before working over the general public about belief that they might try and figure that one out. His point being, I think, is that even among those that have deep understanding of the scientific method are a few who still cling to irrational thought.

Being educated doesn't guarantee against ignorance or irrationality.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Perhaps, but you must admit that your steadfast refusal to demonstrate any of that knowledge is... confusing.

No I am watching everyone normal human behaiveur. When someone reads what you have said and it makes them ether get you to admint they are right or discredit everything you have said. In school that is bulling. In my mind thinking about the project I am woriking on I am waying the risk of wheather or not to put that in to the aalgorithm. I also know I am not picking any theory out as being right when most use the same data. Darwins theory is one of many. Why is it the one people fight for the most. They are all theories that use the same data they just don't have the same conclustion being drawn.

The way I see it right now is that the ain't religus crowed is trying to hold down the religus crowd un till the yell uncle. The question was "do you beleive in Darwins evolution" Not that we should have to and if you say know you are ether stupid or don't understand science which both are from the truth.

More data for you flat earth Darwin only's out there do web searches of per-darwin and post-darwin evolution you will see a whole welth of data you will not have seen by saying the question is too darwin or not. A binary adatude is not very helpful because it is what is in us personaly and not what the colutive thinks.
 

ej6267

Registered User
After thinking about this all night I decided to say one thing why I am so adamit about theories. It is because I am in the middle of a project to model one small part of human behavior using a SOM self organizing.map modifyed by a swarm programing algorithm. A theory limit data used in it because of the massive amount of data. It is one persons idea on how to limit that data. I am using a hadoop data base stopped that limitation in this data base so the is all there for the outcome to change as perseptions do. I know my spelling turn off so many of you but as person the has ssavant tendencies spelling is just little crap I don't care about. I say look at the data and use what you want but always keep an eye on all the other data that lurks close by.

Please help me here, I really am trying to understand. Is your objection simply to using the word theory because you disagree with it's definition, or are you seeing a problem with the evolutionary model itself, and if this is your actual objection, what specifically is it other than "it is incomplete"?
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Please help me here, I really am trying to understand. Is your objection simply to using the word theory because you disagree with it's definition, or are you seeing a problem with the evolutionary model itself, and if this is your actual objection, what specifically is it other than "it is incomplete"?

No people fight for what they think is right using only a little data in stead of looking at all of it. Most Darwinest think that this is only a two part answer. Darwin's theory is one of many hince "just a theory" and if you don't think it is completly right the pro-darwin forces attack you first a you don't know anything about science and then you are stupid. I don't bend to pressure and ther are more theorys our there about evolution than you can shake a stick at. Most Darwinest use his theory to say there is no God and that is what make me wonder about all of these Masons here. Darwinisam is one of the tools used by the comunist to get rid of God so government will be the God and it will fit Carl Marx ideas. When I am writing things to be read I can't get my thoughts on paper fast enought to keep them complete. There may be gaps in my writing but that is because I thought what to say a long time before I could type it like milliseconds.

The project I am working on that I talked about I wish I could give you details on and you would see how it fits. But I can't if I am going to make money with it.
 

ej6267

Registered User
Still not sure where you are headed with this. You are saying that the data is in, but that there are multiple theories we could come to? If so, what are the other theories that haven't already been discredited by updated data? (Lamarckian evolution, etc.)
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
Still not sure where you are headed with this. You are saying that the data is in, but that there are multiple theories we could come to? If so, what are the other theories that haven't already been discredited by updated data? (Lamarckian evolution, etc.)

There is always new data comming in. Really do a google or Dogpile search of pst-darwin theorys. Look at what was happening at the time his theory was excepted and by who. There are a lot of theories about everything and why does this one get so much push and talk? Why if you don't except it you don't know about science why why why.
 

JohnnyFlotsam

Premium Member
The way I see it right now is that the ain't religus crowed is trying to hold down the religus crowd un till the yell uncle.

We hear it all the time from the right and it upon examination, it is, almost always, simply not true. So, before we go any further, I am going to assist that you support this assertion.
 

ej6267

Registered User
There is always new data comming in. Really do a google or Dogpile search of pst-darwin theorys. Look at what was happening at the time his theory was excepted and by who. There are a lot of theories about everything and why does this one get so much push and talk? Why if you don't except it you don't know about science why why why.

Okay, I've googled Post Darwinism and I've gotten a lot of scientists that support evolution. Still not seeing any other models that seriously compete. Was there a particular one or ones to which you're trying to draw our attention?


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Ok and how does the forming of a lake have anything to do with Evolution?

Darwin was a top notch geologist in his day. If geology were his strongest field few modern geologists would remember him and almost none outside of science would remember him.

Newton was a top notch alchemist in his day. He lived in a time when chemistry had not yet emerged from natural philosophy to become a science. If alchemy were his strongest field few modern chemists would remember him and almost none outside of science would remember him.

People are best known for their strongest contributions. Some think "X was a well respected professor at a local university" actually says something bad about a person.
 

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
The evolution debate is so 1990's... We should discuss the bigger debate... Loop quantum gravity vs. string theory. ;-)

Bonus points if you know where this is from.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
We hear it all the time from the right and it upon examination, it is, almost always, simply not true. So, before we go any further, I am going to assist that you support this assertion.

Every time one of these post say to me "you don't know anything about science" and then beat me with words about what they say I don't know instead of listning to what I am saying they are telling me what I am saying.
 

jvarnell

Premium Member
A very succinct well written article. Thanks for sharing, Brother!

Yes and did you see the word Darwin any where in it? The answer is No. hince the Subject of this thread. I don't say things don't evolve. I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics.
 

Aeelorty

Registered User
Yes and did you see the word Darwin any where in it? The answer is No. hince the Subject of this thread. I don't say things don't evolve. I just reject how Darwin and his buddies used of it for polictics.

Darwin did not support social darwinism, which is what I assume you are talking about. In fact the term "survival of the fittest" coined by Herbert Spencer is a bit of a misnomer, fitness had nothing to do with beings the physical strongest, it was to do with who produces offspring that then reporduce themselves.
 
Last edited:
Top