Evolution

[grannymh]

I wonder what a debate between oriel and Riley Sinder would be like.

Being the dedicated scientist that I am. Spending hours of diligent research on the dangers of drinking delicious Pepsi while deciphering posts. Depending on my dear, sweet colleagues to keep my curiosity out of trouble. Alas! and Alack! Astray I’ve been led! Trusting in Google for background checks. Sounding familiar, famous Riley Sinder was found. Am so hoping that this upgrade will include a smilie for a splattered key board.

 

[oriel16]

Being the dedicated scientist that I am. Spending hours of diligent research on the dangers of drinking delicious Pepsi while deciphering posts. Depending on my dear, sweet colleagues to keep my curiosity out of trouble. Alas! and Alack! Astray I’ve been led! Trusting in Google for background checks. Sounding familiar, famous Riley Sinder was found. Am so hoping that this upgrade will include a smilie for a splattered key board.

You and many like you can sit back, relax and drink your pepsi while watching the principles of Malthus on national supremacy put into good effect in Europe,the same one Darwin and his empirical buddies believed ‘causes’ diversity via ‘natural selection’ ,a term that has about the same connotation as ‘special treatment’-

youtube.com/watch?v=Ty86MxLgxLM

All the chatter and handwringing about evolution and its implications for religion really is about how an essay on national supremacy made such an impact on humanity.You may not have noticed but I am the single person here calling it for what it is and if any Christian cannot work it out with a few simple paragraphs and not have their stomach turned,they may as well join you in that evil nonsense called empiricism.

You ‘choose’ not to look at the festering national supremacy idea at the core of Darwin’s view and that is fine but that is all it ever will be -

“Till at length the whole territory, from the confines of China to the shores of the Baltic, was peopled by a various race of Barbarians, brave, robust, and enterprising, inured to hardship, and delighting in war. Some tribes maintained their independence. Others ranged themselves under the standard of some barbaric chieftain who led them to victory after victory, and what was of more importance, to regions abounding in corn, wine, and oil, the long wished for consummation, and great reward of their labours. An Alaric, an Attila, or a Zingis Khan, and the chiefs around them, might fight for glory, for the fame of extensive conquests, but the true cause that set in motion the great tide of northern emigration, and that continued to propel it till it rolled at different periods against China, Persia, italy, and even Egypt, was a scarcity of food, a population extended beyond the means of supporting it.” Thomas Malthus

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.” Charles Darwin

“Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Germany must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead this people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The National Socialist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence”
National socialism

You made something which is absolutely stomach turning into an occasion for a casual discussion because of your ‘choice’.The line of line of reasoning is laid bare to those who can handle it but so far only cowardice marks this topic within the Church and within this forum.Thank God the men of 60 years ago fought and died to kill that ideology of national supremacy and its justification for attempting to eliminate an entire race of people,the same principle which would seek to eliminate Christianity.

Too many cowards and not enough competence but one thing is for sure,you would not spend 15 seconds watching that youtube video of where ‘natural selection’ leads

 

[Maranatha33]

Here are some of the astronomical odds and how they were calculated. These are exclusive to Jesus. After I run some errands, I will present astronomical odds for the fallacy of evolution. Feel free to ignore the truth…

SCIENCE SPEAKS (about the odds)
By PETER W. STONER, M.S.
Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953; Chairman of the science division, Westmont College, 1953-57; Professor Emeritus of Science, Westmont College; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics and Astronomy, Pasadena City College.
Since it is so detailed, these are the highlights from the 3rd chapter of Science Speaks. For those who enjoy the details and/or the probabilities calculations, the entire chapter will follow at the end of the book…
In evaluating these prophecies, we shall have to answer this question regarding each prophecy: One man in how many men has fulfilled this prophecy? I realize that some will object to this question, saying that these prophecies were made with respect to Christ, and no other man has, or even can, fulfill them. This, of course, is true when you consider the mass of prophecies regarding Christ, but it is not true of all individual prophecies. It was prophesied, for example, that Christ would be born in Bethlehem; certainly other persons have been born in Bethlehem. It was prophesied that Christ would be crucified; other men have been crucified. I certainly am not trying to be sacrilegious in asking these questions; but I am trying to look at the evidence entirely unbiased, that I may the better give a clear argument.
The estimates used in this chapter are a combination of the estimates given by this class on Christian evidences combined with estimates given me later by some twelve different classes of college students, representing more than 600 students. I have carefully weighed the estimates and have changed some to make them more conservative. If the reader does not agree with the estimates given, he may make his own estimates and then carry them through to their logical conclusions.
We considered the following eight prophecies:

1. “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2).
2. “Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me” (Mal. 3:1).
3. “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation: lowly, and riding upon … a colt the foal of an ***” (Zech. 9:9).
4. “And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends”(Zech. 13:6).
5. “And I said unto them, if ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver” (Zech. 11:12).
6. “And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prized at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord” (Zech. 11:13).
7. “He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth” (Isa. 53:7).
8. “For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet”(Ps. 22:16).
   We find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017. Let us try to visualize this chance. If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all of the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far s he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote using their own wisdom. Now these prophecies were either given by inspiration of God or the prophets just wrote them as they thought they should be. In such a case the prophets had just one chance in 1017 of having them come true in any man, but they all came true in Christ.

This means that the fulfillment of these {8} eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of those prophecies to a definiteness which lacks only one change in 1017 of being absolute. (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000)
Suppose we add eight more prophecies to our list, and assume that their chance of fulfillment is the same as the eight just considered. The chance that one man would fulfill all {16} sixteen is 1 in 1045.
(1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
Let us try to visualize this as we did before. Take this number of silver dollars. If you make these into a solid ball, you will have a great sphere with a center at the earth, and extending in all directions more than 30 times as far as from the earth to the sun. Again, this is based on only {16} sixteen of the more than {300} three hundred prophecies dealing with Christ’s first advent.
Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world.

 

[agangbern]

The line of line of reasoning is laid bare to those who can handle it but so far only cowardice marks this topic within the Church and within this forum.Thank God the men of 60 years ago fought and died to kill that ideology of national supremacy and its justification for attempting to eliminate an entire race of people,the same principle which would seek to eliminate Christianity.

Too many cowards and not enough competence but one thing is for sure,you would not spend 15 seconds watching that youtube video of where ‘natural selection’ leads

Those ideology you mentioned of “national supremacy” and “survival of the fittest” are really dangerous to society and to human life itself.

 

[oriel16]

Those ideology you mentioned of “national supremacy” and “survival of the fittest” are really dangerous to society and to human life itself.

Let me ask you this,what personal spiritual opinion would you give up to make sure that a holocaust like the one in Europe never,ever happens again to the human race ?.

Would you recognise evolution as something which once existed as a lively topic in tandem with evolutionary geology within Christian tradition without the slightest hint of ‘survival of the fittest’ or any other need for a ‘cause’?.

Would you and those who hold a similar view be satisfied with Adam as the first Hebrew rather than the first human being thereby allowing Christians to tackle the phony empirical approach to genuine science where intuitive intelligence is required. ?.

 

[grannymh]

Dear oriel16,

Now that I have your attention. Here is one flat out, straight up question.

What is your personal definition of empiricism or empirical method? In other words, in what sense are you using empiricism/empirical method when you write?

I am not looking for the effects of empiricism. I am not looking for how it hurts humanity. Good grief. You’ve left out one of the worse effects ever. In the future I will be writing about that for a parish evangelization project. I don’t want a definition of Arianism. Its effects on morality are obvious. I am not looking for a general definition of science. However, if you have limited the definition of science to one aspect, please put that after you have explained the meaning of empiricism as you use it. If you interchange science with empiricism, please let me know how.

Your attention to my question is sincerely appreciated. Thank you.
granny

All human beings have souls which connect them to their Creator.

P.S. any link which depends on sound is useless to me. My computer does not have “sound” hooked up.

 

[agangbern]

When we assume that the origins of the universe and all life has a naturalistic explanation (Big Bang and evolution), which excludes the possibility of direct creation by God of all things pretty much as they are in their current state, this will lead to false conclusions.

**The following, however, are the biggest problems with theistic evolution that must be addressed: the absurd scenario that at some point a pseudo-human without an immortal soul, destined to become a mere pile of ashes, gave birth to a human with an immortal soul, destined to exist eternally in heaven or hell. It also affects original sin as evolutionary theory excludes the possibility that we have all descended from Adam and Eve. **

May I know what is this so-called “theistic evolution”? What are its basic features? How does it basically differ from the so-called “Creationist Evolution” and “Naturalist Evolution”?
And what other kinds of evolutions are there? Can anyone here enlighten me, in brief, of those different kinds of evolution theory?

 

[agangbern]

Let me ask you this,what personal spiritual opinion would you give up to make sure that a holocaust like the one in Europe never,ever happens again to the human race ?.

Nothing! For my spiritual opinion basically revolves only on the teachings and examples of Jesus. And if we look at Jesus, we find no danger of Him becoming a cause of a “*holocaust like the one in Europe.”

• In fact he never became such.

Would you recognise evolution as something which once existed as a lively topic in tandem with evolutionary geology within Christian tradition without the slightest hint of ‘survival of the fittest’ or any other need for a ‘cause’?.

May I know first what you mean by “evolutionary geology within Christian tradition”?

Would you and those who hold a similar view be satisfied with Adam as the first Hebrew rather than the first human being thereby allowing Christians to tackle the phony empirical approach to genuine science where intuitive intelligence is required. ?.

Your question is whether to me Adam is the first Hebrew or the first human being. I would say that he is both. He is the first Hebrew, for the Hebrew people trace to Adam as their first “ancestor”. But Adam could also represent as the first “ancestor” of mankind itself.

 

[Maranatha33]

The Miller Experiment

The miller experiment of the 1950’s was an abject failure. his goal was to create the “building blocks of life” aka amino acids, and he did. there is no dispute over the fact that he created amino acids. However, what he produced was death, not life. amino acids come in two different formations. they are mirror images of each other, like our left hand and our right hand. in fact, that is what they are called, left handed amino acids, and right handed amino acids. every living protein molecule is composed of only left handed amino acids. no right handed amino acids at all. miller’s experiment created equal amounts of both right and left handed amino acids. this is not the formation of a living protein, but for death. and as of today, no one has ever produced all left handed amino acids. even when starting an experiment with all left handed amino acids, scientists can not prevent right handed amino acids from quickly replacing some of the left handed ones. after a person dies, the amino acids will go from all left, to a mixture (about equal) of both. So how is life sustained? certainly not by man or any man-made geuine science application where intuitive intelligence is required. ?. Odds for sustaining life with a Creator God…100% without…0%

 

[Maranatha33]

The Miller experiment part 2.

An interesting situation arose when Mr. Miller preformed this experiment. He used gasses that he thought were most likely present in the beginning. But he left out undiluted oxygen. Why? He had too, because empirical science proves that life can’t be started in the presence of oxygen. it affects the cellular structure. but oxygen is necessary for the ozone layer to prevent the earth from instantly frying due to the sun’s rays. so life with or without oxygen, is not possible. Need for a Creator God…100% no need…0%

 

[grannymh]

May I know what is this so-called “theistic evolution”? What are its basic features? How does it basically differ from the so-called “Creationist Evolution” and “Naturalist Evolution”?
And what other kinds of evolutions are there? Can anyone here enlighten me, in brief, of those different kinds of evolution theory?

Me too.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There’s only one evolutionary theory in science. Theistic evolution is merely the religious belief that accepts the way God created the diversity of life.

“Creationist evolution” is an oxymoron. And “naturalist evolution”, I never heard of.

 

[Maranatha33]

Actually Creationists evolution is not an oxymoron. Creationists believe in evolution of a species within its own kind. For example, a wolf could evolve over time to a german shepherd. We just don’t believe that a wolf could evolve into a tree.

 

[Maranatha33]

Btw,

Barbarian, if you would like more scientific odds against evolution, please let me know.

 

[grannymh]

Btw,

Barbarian, if you would like more scientific odds against evolution, please let me know.

Dear Maranatha33,

If you like scientific odds, you might enjoy the 151 page book,* Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God* by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker
ISBN: 978-1-931018-48-7

Blessings,
granny

All human beings benefit from the Real Presence of Jesus Christ among us.

 

[oriel16]

Dear oriel16,

Now that I have your attention. Here is one flat out, straight up question.

P.S. any link which depends on sound is useless to me. My computer does not have “sound” hooked up.

You have my attention as a type of Chrsitian but not as a reasoning individual Christian and I address you as the former.I want you to look at as many holocaust videos or images as you can until you get sick or realise that the core of the empirical ‘cause’ for evolution is based on an essay on national supremacy.

If you have a severe difficulty reading the explicit reasoning of Darwin as it applies both to Malthus and his essay on national supremacy and forward in history to the gas chambers arising from the same ‘natural selection’ justification then stay away from the topic .

You do not have a choice so go back and read the original post with the video in it.It does not need sound as there is none,the images of human destruction by other humans based on national supremacy speak for themselves.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Btw,

Barbarian, if you would like more scientific odds against evolution, please let me know.

You cited some non-scriptural numbers purportedly proving his version of God. Do you have anything showing the odds against evolution?

The miller experiment of the 1950’s was an abject failure. his goal was to create the “building blocks of life” aka amino acids, and he did. there is no dispute over the fact that he created amino acids. However, what he produced was death, not life. amino acids come in two different formations. they are mirror images of each other, like our left hand and our right hand. in fact, that is what they are called, left handed amino acids, and right handed amino acids. every living protein molecule is composed of only left handed amino acids. no right handed amino acids at all. miller’s experiment created equal amounts of both right and left handed amino acids.

You’ve been misled on a few points. First, the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. If you doubt God’s word, and want to imagine He created life magically, it wouldn’t make any difference to evolution. And Miller-Urey didn’t really have a target. They just wanted to see what would happen. However, the results were confirmed by the Murchison meteorite, which was found to contain natural amino acids, including a few not used in living things. And more interesting, there was an excess of L-forms. Just what abiogenesis needs.

Amino Acid Asymmetry in the Murchison Meteorite

Further, D-forms are generally not toxic; they merely aren’t usable.

**While the L-configuration of amino acids predominates in all known living systems, D-enantiomers of amino acids have been detected with highly sensitive chromatographic techniques in human physiological fluids. In the present study, the survival of Chinese hamster ovary cells (CHO) and HeLa cells was inhibited by exposure to high concentrations of some D- or L-amino acids. Inhibition of colony formation, though, was not necessarily observed to be chiral-dependent. Some L-amino acids (LAAS) were found to be toxic while other D-amino acids (DAAS) were innocuous in both cultures. This is contradictory to the previous observations that DAAS were generally considered to be harmful. **
www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/71366/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Maybe you’d like to try again? This time, how about some actual odds?
(hint: odds about evolution are calculated probabilities, and should actually be about evolution)

 

[The_Barbarian]

Actually Creationists evolution is not an oxymoron.

Of course it is. I’m not trying to be insulting; “oxymoron” means a contradiction in terms, not a reflection on the lack of intelligence among creationists.

Creationists believe in evolution of a species within its own kind.

Most of the honest ones now admit speciation is a fact. But they just redefined “kind” to “evolution so dramatic, we don’t think there could be evidence for it.”

For example, a wolf could evolve over time to a german shepherd. We just don’t believe that a wolf could evolve into a tree.

I’m always astonished that people with enough intelligence to type sentences on a computer, don’t know what evolution is about. A “wolf evolving into a tree” would be compelling evidence against evolutionary theory.

You’d probably be more effective against science, if you knew more about it. But, of course, if you understood it, you might not oppose it any longer. Rock and a hard place, um?

 

[edwest2]

The origin of life has everything to do with evolution. Since life cannot arise from nothing, then that creates a problem that, so far, science has not solved.

Peace,
Ed

 

[oriel16]

Nothing!

I have already shown in another post that the Divinely inspired text of Genesis is a reflection of the Divine inspiration in the actual life of Jesus.To wish to mix the magnificant life of Jesus and his lifespan as a human being like everyone else here with the exaggerated ages of the Patriarchs,of which Adam was one, is something that demonstrates a complete disregard for both the Hebrews who created the Genesis text and the life of Jesus.

“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.”
St Augustine

I still require genuine Chrsitians with an interest in science as it actually existed before the empirical intrusion in the late 17th century,not easy as the educational machinary basically indoctrinates students to believe that Newton inherited the works of Christian astronomers such as Copernicus,Kepler and Galileo.From a standpoint of knowing what is correct,and it really does not take too much of an effort with moderjm imaging and the original texts,it is fairly easy to spot the empirical distortions which started the ‘natural laws’ bandwagon rolling.

Obviously,you continue to make creation, God and Jesus in your own image rather than the other way around.