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.
Hugh_Farey said:
Aaaaarrrgghh!! “Proven”, again!!
Click to expand...
Okay, don’t have a stroke. “Not validated” Better?

That’s one of the problems with evolutionary theories, like string theory, they are explanations, stories which lack testability, a means of validation. As we see in your interpretation, randomness like the term evolution actually means whatever the person wants it to mean.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Which ones do you believe?
Click to expand...
Vimalakirti, as with Jesus and the 5,000, is probably an exaggerated account of a real incident. The numbers given in ancient texts are notoriously unreliable.

The Prophet Mohammed splitting the moon seems to be similar to the miracle of Fatima: those nearby saw it while those far away did not. In either case astronomers would have noticed something and recorded it. So those two are probably some sort of mass hallucination, effect of clouds or whatever.

Homer uses the gods to explain a lot of things. Some are probably memories of real events, as with the siege of Troy itself. Others are just moral tales the poet has incorporated into his work.

You might also want to read chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita; it has a Transfiguration scene.

rossum
 
Hugh_Farey said:
You have clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about science, that you have an irrational fear of the evils of materialism, and insufficient faith in God’s plan to trust in his pioneers. Never mind, we’ll get there in the end, dragging the creationists in chains behind us!
Click to expand...
Just a heads up.

Since I am very comfortable with the extent of my knowledge of science, having a pretty good idea of why a materialistic outlook can more likely lead to evil, and actually knowing that God through matter can speak to ardent materialists, if they are prepared to receive His message. You might want to reflect on what on your side is being projected onto me.
 
Last edited:
That’s fine. If more people were comfortable in their ideas, we might all agree to disagree and move on.
You actually got it right when you said that evolution was only an explanation, like string theory. If only you knew, all science is only an explanation. Its validation lies in how well it fits the observations. As soon as an observation contradicts the explanation, the explanation must be modified, even to the extent of being thrown out if it cannot be reconciled.
 
Sure it’s vague. Some environmental change or asteroid impact kills off a high number of species, then what? Back to square one?

Intelligent Design is the only reasonable explanation. That’s why they are reverse engineering biological components. Increasing and increasing evidence shows that not enough time was available. That’s why a lot more time is being added. Scientists are waking up from a bad dream and they might drop this Darwinian idea once they realize this.
 
Ok, we are fast approaching the 2000 post limit when this occurs continue on to Part 4.1 🚀
 
Last edited:
[even to the extent of being thrown out if it cannot be reconciled.]

Which is what is happening right now.
 
buffalo said:
hugh_fary believes the longer the list is how science is done.
The Dissent from Darwin list is there to counter the claim ALL scientists agree with evolution. It only takes one to defeat that claim.
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. The huge explanation of the universe that we call science is indeed ultimately approved of by general consensus. A few hundred dissidents, PhDs or not, matter not a whit.
I think there are no scientists who don’t wish there was more information to help make evolution a more complete explanation, and would not encourage explorations, investigations and experiments to provide that information.

The wording of Dissent from Darwin’s Website and Adherence List is careful, and not necessarily controversial. It is very careful not to ask anybody to dissent from Evolution, for example, but specifies Darwinism (and Neo-Darwinism). To non-scientists, these are indistinguishable from each other and to Evolution as a whole, but within the field they have specific definitions. One of the ‘Resources’ on the website is entitled “How should Evolution be taught?” which says that “schools need to teach more about evolution, not less.” Who could disagree with that?

As for Darwinism (or Neo-Darwinism, they don’t seem sure), this seems to be defined in terms of the emphasis this particular version sets on “random mutation” and “natural selection.” As it happens, I think the authors of the website were largely out of date even when they set it up, as most evolutionary researchers were already beginning to be aware that the randomness of mutation had been overstated, and that epigenetic factors can play a part in heredity.

What’s more, Dissent From Darwinism specifically states that it does not dissent from “The idea that all organisms are related and are descended from a single common ancestor.” That being so, I quite feel like signing the List myself!

Unfortunately, but entirely deliberately, the authors do not substantiate the claim that “The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list shows that there is credible scientific dissent from Darwinian theory.” It does no such thing. There are dissenters, true, and fine scientists they all are no doubt, but we are given no inkling of any credible dissent.
 
Epigenetics you say? Heredity beyond genes?

The sins of the father passed on for a few generations… Sound familiar.

See my Genetic Piano post:

idvolution.blogspot.com

Genetic Piano

IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com idvolution.blogspot.com
 
There is no credible evidence for the evolution of novel organs or body parts, just conjecture.

There is no experimental evidence for evolution. Observable, testable repeatable.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
We have the evidence of Revelation.
Click to expand...
Not good enough answer from you. You said “theory”. Go to it. And I know without a doubt the Church has no conflict with my believing in evolution science. Who’s the authority here, you or the Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top