B
buffalo
Guest
You posted evolution was guided, not me.
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
Because evolution has been made unfalsifiable. That is not science.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Still naughty. You can’t take one word, make up a speech from it, ands claim that’s what someone said.
Evolution is entirely falsifiable. Some fossil fruit trees older than any marine animal fossils would falsify it instantly. The spontaneous creation of a new kind of animal would be even better. However, there are two reasons why something might not be falsifiable. One is that, like Creationism, having no evidence to support it, there is nothing to falsify. The other is, like Evolution, it’s the truth!
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Are you serious? Every challenge is met with “evolution found new ways” or “this was unexpected” or “this was earlier than thought” or “scientists were surprised”
Evolution can do just about anything. It is becoming a joke.
It morphs and allows everything and why it is the pagan god of BUC that is worshipped.
Evolution can do just about anything. It is becoming a joke.
It morphs and allows everything and why it is the pagan god of BUC that is worshipped.
B
buffalo
Guest
Science is about observations.
NO ONE has observed it.
Go down the list starting from the beginning and over and over there were observers to God’s miracles. The light created for the Israelites, the light in Genesis, the light at Lanciano, the brightest of lights at the Transfiguration. Then God changes matter. So much…
ALL were observed by human witnesses.
So which is more scientific? Certainly not evolution, never observed…
NO ONE has observed it.
Go down the list starting from the beginning and over and over there were observers to God’s miracles. The light created for the Israelites, the light in Genesis, the light at Lanciano, the brightest of lights at the Transfiguration. Then God changes matter. So much…
ALL were observed by human witnesses.
So which is more scientific? Certainly not evolution, never observed…
B
buffalo
Guest
If the rabbit was found, evolution would just create a new storyline.
S
Scott2
Guest
irrelevant with regards to theory. Science is a tool.…mostly made up of atheists.
Atheists subscribe to a philosophy of scientism as a meta view of the world…which is why they reject any viability of faith.
S
Scott2
Guest
Misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1
Last edited:
S
Scott2
Guest
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
By participating in a forum like this for any length of time, a kind of subtext of the minds of its contributors builds up from the obstinacy of their contributions. Buffalo introduced BUC in post number 529. This became a mantra for a while, although there was some discussion about what it might mean. There were philosophical ideas about what “unguided” and “chance” really mean, and scientific ideas about constraints to probability. It should have become obvious to buffalo, a thousand posts ago, that BUC was a particular straw horse of his own, and in no sense a valid characterisation of Evolution. But here it is again, like Linus’s security blanket.
Then we have the misrepresentation of ‘observations’ as the basis for evolution, on the grounds that no one has seen it, and thus it has not been observed. If I see a dog on one side of the road, and then on the other side of the road, then I may conclude that it has crossed the road, even though I didn’t see it cross. My hypothesis, that the dog crossed the road, was not observed, but that does not mean that it was not based on observations. Furthermore, my hypothesis is not proof, or indisputable fact. It is merely an explanation to account for the observations. I may be informed that in fact the dog dematerialised on one side and rematerialised on the other, or that the second dog was actually a different dog, or that both dogs were figments of my imagination. All these are possible, and I must use whatever further evidence
I may have to decide which hypothesis I should support.
Then we have the misrepresentation of ‘observations’ as the basis for evolution, on the grounds that no one has seen it, and thus it has not been observed. If I see a dog on one side of the road, and then on the other side of the road, then I may conclude that it has crossed the road, even though I didn’t see it cross. My hypothesis, that the dog crossed the road, was not observed, but that does not mean that it was not based on observations. Furthermore, my hypothesis is not proof, or indisputable fact. It is merely an explanation to account for the observations. I may be informed that in fact the dog dematerialised on one side and rematerialised on the other, or that the second dog was actually a different dog, or that both dogs were figments of my imagination. All these are possible, and I must use whatever further evidence
I may have to decide which hypothesis I should support.
The theory of evolution as it stands would have to be rethought. It could be modified, extended, or rejected. That’s what science is.
R
rossum
Guest
Ah… an old favourite. The DI list has a few hundred names. However, their list is open to anyone. The List of Steves, who support evolution is much more exclusive and only allows people called Steve to join (sadly we just lost Stephen Hawking).
The list of Steves has over 1400 people called Steve, equivalent to 140,000 people if all names were allowed. The Discovery Institute list has less than 1,000 people. That is how badly ID has failed to get scientific notice.
The DI list was last updated in 2016; the List of Steves was last updated this month.
The DI list is a good example of the failure of ID: it has lost traction and is not going anywhere.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
You left out the Bodhisattva Vimalakirti feeding 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice.
The Qur’an says there were witnesses to the Prophet Mohammed splitting the moon in two.
Homer records human witnesses to some of the actions of the Olympian gods.
There are a great many witnessed miracles in human records.
rossum
S
Scott2
Guest
Wait, wait, wait…just who were the humans that observed the first 5 days of creation in Genesis - “the light in Genesis” - if Adam was created on the 6th day…and on which day exactly was it that Eve was created from Adam’s rib?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
It is relevant when someone makes a claim the PAS is Catholic.
B
buffalo
Guest
An admission. Of course I have seen this claim over and over and the escape are because evo is not observable, repeatable and predictable.
Once again, the abilility for bacteria to digest citrate was already there. Being able to do so in an oxygen environment in just 4 weeks is adaptation.
Once again, the abilility for bacteria to digest citrate was already there. Being able to do so in an oxygen environment in just 4 weeks is adaptation.
B
buffalo
Guest
Fr Coyne was removed after making some absurd claims.
B
buffalo
Guest
Genesis 1 is written from God’s perspective.
A
Aloysium
Guest
In today’s gospel from John 12, we hear;
Life is not moulded by its components, whose properties clearly influence the final form, but require an external agency or principle, if one is unwilling to consider God. The properties of bricks and mortar influence the construction of a home, which necessarily needs an architect and the labour to build.
Again, most of the actual science, the facts of creation are less in question than how they have been put together in the story of an evolutionary process involving random activity of processes built into atoms, and under the influence of necessity in the utilitarian idea of natural selection.
Make no mistake that how we want things to be highly influences how we perceive and understand things, which in turn leads to our choices and ultimately who we are for all eternity. To restate something already presented, if one were to plot the relationship between a belief in miracles and the afterlife, the ultimate authority of God, and the personhood of the unborn, those beliefs which tend to go together, as they correlate with a belief in evolution, the relationship would be inverse.
To take offense or get angry hearing about the real life consequences of what might otherwise be thought of as a trivial intellectual exercise, would show a certain amount of short-sightedness.
Thereby alluding to a responder’s possible level of understanding, I am fully aware that I don’t know who I am talking to. I can only know so far what might be the basis of the difference of opinion. I do know the extent of my knowledge base and that is most definitely not an issue. As to my capacity to reason, I’m pretty sure I can grasp most arguments. I don’t particularly value appeals to authority and I will not respond to questions about my knowledge base and qualifications.
What is important is our relationship with God, who will reveal to us what is important for us to know. Reason can lead us there, but our spiritual ground must be prepared to nurture the seeds of faith. The Church offers us the means to do so individually and collectively.
Evolution is the equivalent of the sound of thunder heard where there is the voice of God.
Life is not moulded by its components, whose properties clearly influence the final form, but require an external agency or principle, if one is unwilling to consider God. The properties of bricks and mortar influence the construction of a home, which necessarily needs an architect and the labour to build.
Again, most of the actual science, the facts of creation are less in question than how they have been put together in the story of an evolutionary process involving random activity of processes built into atoms, and under the influence of necessity in the utilitarian idea of natural selection.
Make no mistake that how we want things to be highly influences how we perceive and understand things, which in turn leads to our choices and ultimately who we are for all eternity. To restate something already presented, if one were to plot the relationship between a belief in miracles and the afterlife, the ultimate authority of God, and the personhood of the unborn, those beliefs which tend to go together, as they correlate with a belief in evolution, the relationship would be inverse.
To take offense or get angry hearing about the real life consequences of what might otherwise be thought of as a trivial intellectual exercise, would show a certain amount of short-sightedness.
Thereby alluding to a responder’s possible level of understanding, I am fully aware that I don’t know who I am talking to. I can only know so far what might be the basis of the difference of opinion. I do know the extent of my knowledge base and that is most definitely not an issue. As to my capacity to reason, I’m pretty sure I can grasp most arguments. I don’t particularly value appeals to authority and I will not respond to questions about my knowledge base and qualifications.
What is important is our relationship with God, who will reveal to us what is important for us to know. Reason can lead us there, but our spiritual ground must be prepared to nurture the seeds of faith. The Church offers us the means to do so individually and collectively.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Buffalo introduced the god of BUC perhaps 10 years ago. Search on it.
BUC itself is an evolutionist claim. What is new is your claim the BGC.
Your observation is real time. Past events are not observable. If someone revealed to you that in the past they saw a dog on one side… you would have to determine if the person was credible. You did not see it happen, so you have to believe someone who did.
In the case of evo, no one has even said it happened or saw it happen.
What is left is remnant data. Darwin was hoping the small continuous steps would be proven, but they have not and since his time it is even worse.
BUC itself is an evolutionist claim. What is new is your claim the BGC.
Your observation is real time. Past events are not observable. If someone revealed to you that in the past they saw a dog on one side… you would have to determine if the person was credible. You did not see it happen, so you have to believe someone who did.
In the case of evo, no one has even said it happened or saw it happen.
What is left is remnant data. Darwin was hoping the small continuous steps would be proven, but they have not and since his time it is even worse.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly…
- Status