Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
I’m not sure what you think science is.
Click to expand...
Science in the macro view is the accumulation of knowledge. I make the distinction of empirical science, that is observable, repeatable, and predictable. Evo does not make the cut.
 
benjamin1973 said:
Creationism and evolution are not at odds.

One is a theological position about why things exist, and one is a description of the mechanism of change in species over time.

It’s very easily reconciled: “God created everything that exists, at every moment in time, according to his plan-- and through our clever science, we’ve learned a lot about the mechanism by which he carries out his plan to let species adapt to a changing environment.”

When you deliberately try to ignore facts, you are ignoring part of the Lord’s plan. You shouldn’t do that in my opinion.

The essence of the debate is this: did God directly create all species ex nihilo, or did he create a Universe with the mechanism in place to carry out His vision over time. I prefer the latter, you prefer the former.
Click to expand...
Hold on - you are actually agreeing with me here. You used the word adapt, which no one argues. Once you allow God to have a plan means evolution is no longer blind unguided chance, which defeats its own claim.

I believe God put in place the prototypes. From there they adapt to their environment around a mean.

You are ignoring the latest science and complexity that is leaving evo behind. No one, I repeat no one, can show the specific details evc pathways. They just all say - evolution did it. What a weak position.
 
Well, no. You didn’t.

Providing links to purported scientists pushing an evangelical Christian agenda is the farthest thing
from science.
 
Oh, good grief. You’re referring to the Tompkins claim, correct? Never been repeated or corroborated by anyone in the field of genomics.
 
adaptation IS evolution.

And you keep saying “science is doing this, evolution is doing that,” but the problem is you don’t know what science is or isn’t doing, except what you’ve obviously read from some 3rd-party blog or website.

Not knowing, but saying that you know anyway, is consistent with your position, I think. But it’s not very good science.
 
“Goddidit” isn’t a scientific position, unless you have a Theory that actually explains the mechanism.

The current best guess is that there’s something intrinsic to the Universe (made by God) which allows for life when arranged in certain ways.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
So you say. Without support. Again
Click to expand...
Look at my numerous past posts over numerous threads. Design is now undeniable. I am not going to repost all of them all over again. Next time, read and pay attention.
Click to expand...
Look at my posts where I refuted yours. You have nothing to pay attention to.
 
Sure there is. He keeps saying he’s right and you’re wrong, and you keep refusing to believe him! 😃
 
buffalo said:
Evolution is anti-bible.
Click to expand...
Evolution is anti-literal-Bible. It is perfectly compatible with some non-literal interpretations of the Bible, see Theistic evolutionists as an example.

A spherical earth is anti-literal-Bible as well, as is a moving earth (see Galileo and Copernicus). The Bible is not a science textbook, and it is an error to treat it as such.

rossum
 
buffalo said:
We now know more. They were wrong.
Click to expand...
They were not wrong, there are different ways to measure the differences in DNA and those different ways give different results.

For example, take two short DNA strands: AAAAAAAAAA and AAAAAAAAAG.

Taking them one base at a time there is a 90% match as only the last bases do not match.

Taking them two at a time: AA AA AA AA AA and AA AA AA AA AG there is an 80% match, only the last pair does not match.

Take them five at a time: AAAAA AAAAA and AAAAA AAAAG there is a 50% match.

Taking them ten at a time then there is a 0% match as the two strands are different.

The level of match depends on the size of the chunks you are comparing. That, and other issues, result in different scientists giving different figures for the level of match between human and chimp DNA.

rossum
 
Yes, all those are/were members of the Hominidae, from Pongo to Homo. Congratulaitons for learning something.

rossum
 
Shakuhachi said:
We share more than structure. We share chemistry.
Click to expand...
I think I get what this intends to say. My view is that chemistry describes the superbly fashioned, intricate and complex material structure of living things. What we know now is more of the same that has always been known, that plants and animals are made of the same earth. Even before the first person milked the first goat or cow, we knew that, like us, mammals, possessing mammary glands, fed their young as we do. If anything more knowledge opens the mystery of things and its realization would otherwise be a first step towards knowledge of our Creator, were the illusion not be so powerful.

I would add that we share far more than chemistry with other life forms.

We all exist. We are individual beings and at the same time, an expression of our kind of being - human, bacteria, plant, bird and so on. All life is relational, physically incorporating what is outside of itself to form its physical self. Every molecule that constitutes our bodies was at one time part of something other.

Except for our free will, life relates instinctively. Plants naturally grow towards the sun. Bacteria react to noxious and beneficial substances. Animals perceive what is of importance to their purposes, emotionally and behaviourally responding in the appropriate manner.

We have always known of our similarity to animals. We have imagined animal spirits which represent our inherent characteristics, such as courage, industry, intelligence, or fidelity. They feel pain and pleasure, react with anger, fear and desire, and exhibit a variety of social behaviours.

It is a radical idea is that we are other than a form of animal.

That life has a history, that it appeared after the creation of the “earth”, and that the creation of mankind was the final step in that step-wise process, is perhaps something most would agree with. My contention is that the focus in the material results in an illusion of false ancestral continuity between different kinds of being. From an existential perspective, which sees God at the Centre, as Existence itself, Triune in nature, perfect Relationaility, Love, every individual organism is an expression of a kind of being that was brought into existence at the beginnings of the world. Regardless of our genetic make-up and its similarity or dissimilarity with others, we, each of us as persons are fully human, constituting one body in Christ.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
Goddidit” isn’t a scientific position, unless you have a Theory that actually explains the mechanism.

The current best guess is that there’s something intrinsic to the Universe (made by God) which allows for life when arranged in certain ways.
Click to expand...
Design in not a theory. We are certain design is real. We humans design all the time. Our designs are empirical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top