Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SINES, LINES, transcription factors and others all contribute to the growing difference. We did not know all this a few decades ago.
 
We are now 365 posts into this thread, and you still have not taken the time to learn what a theory is. Here I was offering to go through an entire Darwin book point-by-point, and you can’t be bothered to spend 5 minutes doing a Google search.

I think I’ll go find something more productive to do with my time.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
We are now 365 posts into this thread, and you still have not taken the time to learn what a theory is. Here I was offering to go through an entire Darwin book point-by-point, and you can’t be bothered to spend 5 minutes doing a Google search.

I think I’ll go find something more productive to do with my time.
Click to expand...
Give me your top 10 from the Origin.
 
rossum said:
Yes, all those are/were members of the Hominidae, from Pongo to Homo. Congratulaitons for learning something.

rossum
Click to expand...
He said it was ridiculous that we came from such a inferior creature . So apparently to you, creature 1# is equal in every way to Man 7# .
 
I didn’t see any contradicting evidence. Only a scientist could speak to it. Are you a scientist? What are your credentials?

I’ve worked in the field of genetics and molecular biology, so I’ve been exposed to a thing or two in the field.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
rossum:
Evolution is anti-literal-Bible.
Click to expand...
Catholics understand the Bible literally, that is, what the author intended to convey. (not literalistically)
Click to expand...
In that case the Bible is not anti-evolution because the authors never intended to refute evolution.
 
Techno2000 said:
He said it was ridiculous that we came from such a inferior creature.
Click to expand...
Inferior in what way? A chimpanzee can beat a human at arm-wrestling and can climb trees a lot faster. Their working memory is better than ours.

We can run longer distances faster and are more successful hunters. We have a greater intelligence.

We are superior in some things and inferior in others. They are superior in some things and inferior in others.

rossum
 
Nope. I’m not interested in doing your homework for you. If you are willing to read the book, then I’ll go through every single page if you like. If you’re not willing, then your willful ignorance will be apparent enough, and I’ll move on with other things.
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
He said it was ridiculous that we came from such a inferior creature.
Click to expand...
Inferior in what way? A chimpanzee can beat a human at arm-wrestling and can climb trees a lot faster. Their working memory is better than ours.

We can run longer distances faster and are more successful hunters. We have a greater intelligence.

We are superior in some things and inferior in others. They are superior in some things and inferior in others.

rossum
Click to expand...
Did a chimpanzee invent the internal combustion engine ? 🙂
 
tigerprowl said:
I’ve worked in the field of genetics and molecular biology, so I’ve been exposed to a thing or two in the field.
Click to expand...
I’m sure we agree as to the basics of genetics. There are controversial issues where not everyone holds the same opinion. But, where the disagreement exists is in how the facts revealed by science, which Buffalo repeatedly has presented in various threads, are put together as a story. Evolution is the mythos of modern secular society, which tends toward materialism. It is an assumption that new forms of living things, radically different from those that preceded, ontologically if not temporally, their appearance are the descendents of those earlier forms. It makes sense only if we look at the world through the lens of materialism, denying what living beings actually are in themselves. Creation is what it was all about, evolution a projection, and not a good one at that, of what we see now in a fallen world where creation involves the individual expression of pre-existing forms, such as we in ourselves, individual human beings - persons.
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
I’ll go through every single page if you like.
Click to expand...
How about selected quotes?
“Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”
― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Click to expand...
So creation comes from " the war of nature, from famine and death". Not in my universe where these are expressions of sin in the world, the original having brought us death and to this state of ignorance, in which we may dwell with our illusions, in a hopeless quest for happinness in transient goods.

Life based on conflict is understood to have been “breathed into new forms”. That’s sin that corrupted us through our own doing.

Death thereby rules life, somehow by killing the unfit, producing diversity and higher animals such as ourselves. Uh, no.

Your turn.
 
Last edited:
What chapter and page is that selection from, and why is he saying “thus?”

It sounds like this is a conclusion based either on evidence or some rationale. Are you planning only to quote mine, or are we actually going to consider the full scope of his ideas, as expressed in the book?

I would expect if we are studying the work, then at the very least we will begin with the main points for each chapter.

At any rate, in the quoted passage, Darwin is saying that natural selection leads to increasingly complex organisms, something which is quite obviously supported by fossil chronology. Smart guy!

Also, what do you think he meant when he talked about life originally being “breathed into a few forms or into one”? Who does he mean to be doing this breathing, do you suppose? Santa Claus?

But seriously, though, are all you die-hard opponents of Darwinism going to take the time actually to read the book, or are you just going to cherry-pick from evolutionmakesusuncomfortable.com?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
In that case the Bible is not anti-evolution because the authors never intended to refute evolution.
Click to expand...
It was meant to show creation,God’s design and Providence.

Why do you and others have such an issue with admitting design? How does that affect your worldview?
 
benjamin1973 said:
Nope. I’m not interested in doing your homework for you. If you are willing to read the book, then I’ll go through every single page if you like. If you’re not willing, then your willful ignorance will be apparent enough, and I’ll move on with other things.
Click to expand...
Move on then. If you cannot even pull out 10 main points you can successfully argue, then you have struck out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top