Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I don’t think that’s an explanation, either. You are replacing a mindless “evolutiondidid, duh!” with an equally mindless “Goddidit, duh!”

Why is that many “front loaded programming” species have gone extinct, and since then, many new “front loaded programming” species have arisen. If you want to debate dating methods, including layering of deposits over time, then I’m not going to listen very long.
 
You should really read the book. It’s passed it’s copyright, and is available online. Instead of just parotting what you would like to be the case, why don’t you read the actual text and see what he said about it, instead of assuming or liefint it from MyReligionIsRight.com?
 
Essential reading…a trillion trillion years or more

When Theory and Experiment Collide

Based on our experimental observations and on calculations we made using a published population model [3], we estimated that Darwin’s mechanism would need a truly staggering amount of time—a trillion trillion years or more—to accomplish the seemingly subtle change in enzyme function that we studied.

IDvolution.org

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
Maybe.

Consciousness is a huge problem for the physical sciences. If the Universe is purely material, and if mind is so obviously (and to me, it’s glaringly obvious) immaterial, then what of it?

That being said, I have a lot of faith in science. In quantum mechanics, it’s already known that there’s no “stuff” as we know it. An electron, for example, isn’t a little ball of matter. It’s a localized wave function, and cannot be represented unambiguously in space and time. In other words, it’s not a thing as we normally use that word.

Then there’s problems with the observer effect. The quantum eraser effect, in particular, could be interpreted by Christians as evidence that the Universe itself is aware of everything happening in it, AND that this awareness transcends even the limitations of time. This begins to sound like the definition of God in many ways.

 
Even a front loaded organism cannot survive a volcano or such extinction event.

Once again, species is a man made classification and losing a function once had and now saying more species has arisen does not even make sense.

Programming comes from a mind not from blind unguided chance.
 
No, it’s a joke. It means you should go to the actual source-- Darwin’s book-- instead of relying on indirect sources who will interpret the source and feed it to you with a biased interpretation.

And it’s not an insult. I mean it literally-- if you want to discuss evolution, you need to know what it is, why the idea has become popular, and how scientists study and understand it. But I don’t think you’ve spent any effort doing that, because some of your arguments don’t make sense in the context of someone who has.
 
We have not really discusses much of that here.

Recalling Godel’s theorem, frames of reference limit what we can explain is the frame we live in. We know the observer can influence the outcome. The mind of God is outside our frame and influences and sustains our frame. I think it was Paul Davies who stated “QM shows the universe to be porous and it is in these pores God operates.” (paraphrasing)
 
I know the book very well although I have not opened it in a long time. FYI - I was taught all this stuff.

What do you think I missed? specifically
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Science is not done by court case or consensus. It is absurd to prevent researchers from inquiry because a judge said so? Ridiculous and not scientific at all. For you to even bring it up is a weak argument. I would think you would know better.
Click to expand...
You miss the point. I’m prepared, in my free time and at no expense, to argue the case for as long as you want, but to demand that expensive and time-consuming experiments to be carried out simply to discredit an already ‘officially’ discredited hypothesis is unjustifiable. Who do you expect to pay for it all?
 
Well, right now, I think you missed the chapter in which difficulties with transitional fossils has always been part of the theory, and a huge part of the ongoing scientific work. It’s not something which is ignored by evolutionists or brushed under the rug in order to carry on some kind of atheistic agenda.
 
The same people supporting evo research. Science should be looking for better explanations. Or are just ready to unscientifically say - “evo did it” and stop looking.

It is far from being discredited and regains more explanatory power everyday.

I direct you to the J Harlen Bretz story. There is a good lesson.
 
Last edited:
Uh, yeah it is swept under the rug and they just try to work around it. Of course, it has been known. I made no claim it hasn’t. The bigger point is this gap has only widened in the last 200 years. Bottom line, it has got worse. Yet evo just keeps self perpetuating. Why? Because it has to. The alternative is too distasteful.
 
hugh_fary says it is by blind guided chance… If something guides chance is it really by chance?
 
The future is bright for ID science and bleak for the old paradigm. I wish some here would catch up to what the top evos are discussing and why the modern synthesis is crumbling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top