Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s apparent that researchers discover things as they go along, usually finding unexpected and higher levels of complexity. They are trying to automate the process but the hammer and chisel are quicker. Genetic knock-out experiments are one example.
 
Last edited:
This would seem to support a view that rather than evolution, the emergence and growing diversity of life was designed. This stuff doesn’t happen spontaneously but requires a shaping of material substances to achieve a viable end, that works together with other processes in the unity of the individual organism participating in its environment.
 
Evolution is the myth of our times. Taken as unshakeable truth, it is used to validate any new discovery that necessarily must fit that belief system. It’s not that anything practical comes of that story, rather all findings must be shown to must comply with the “fact” of evolution. That’s why it’s bandied about all over. And the belief, telling us who we are, forms the basis of much decision making and ultimately our acts, which determine who we will ourselves to be. Of course people are on board because it’s their job within that system, and the truth should win out As the tide changes within society, there would be a shift towards a different model that speaks to who we are and got here, and science will try to fit its findings into that mould.
 
Last edited:
We don’t need a different model. God made us, not blind unguided chance. The “no one designed us” idea was put out there on a TV show. Atheism is the goal.
 
The natural evolution of species is not only not true; it is unsupported by science. The testable science is on the side of the creationists
 
Uriel1 said:
The natural evolution of species is not only not true; it is unsupported by science. The testable science is on the side of the creationists
Click to expand...
An assertion made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Your assertion has no evidence.

rossum
 
Pope Benedict:

"In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin’s theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin’s theory of evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”

“The pope (John Paul) had his reasons for saying this,” Benedict said. “But it is also true that the theory of evolution is not a complete, scientifically proven theory.”

Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.

“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it. Threads like this just keep appearing and appearing and appearing…
 
Wipond disagrees with you. Of evolution he
said that it’s all blind faith
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Wipond disagrees with you. Of evolution he
said that it’s all blind faith
Click to expand...
What evidence does he have to support that statement? Does he not believe that bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics?

rossum
 
“The first effect of not believing in God, is that you lose your common sense.” GK Chesterton

m
 
One theory that was explained to me by a senior genetics scientist was based on the belief in the common ancestry of humans and chimps. The research project reqired knowing the “original” state of the a part of human genome, and it was believed that a cetain part of chimp genome reflected this “original” human state (don’t ask me how). In other words, it was believed chimp DNA can teach us about human DNA.

Sounds like voodoo-science to me.
 
Aloysium said:
Evolution is the myth of our times. Taken as unshakeable truth, it is used to validate any new discovery that necessarily must fit that belief system. It’s not that anything practical comes of that story, rather all findings must be shown to must comply with the “fact” of evolution. That’s why it’s bandied about all over.
Click to expand...
The scientists I’ve spoken to are absolutely convinced that the theory of Darwinian common descent “works”, and is therefore to a fact. But what they mean is, it “works” on paper - ie, in their spell-bound minds.
Meanwhile, in the real world, it doesn’t “work” at all - it’s completely bloody useless.
 
I believe the fossil and geological records do reveal an overall picture of evolution, but since the author of life’s history is God Almighty, it is highly unlikely that the mechanisms that allowed that history to proceed were purely naturalistic. That is to say, the contiguous process of biological evolution proffered by the scientific community may not be what actually happened, even though there may be evidence that reasonably suggests it.
 
Last edited:
I believe Lenski’s little family is up to about 68,000 generations now. The E. coli are still E. coli, however.
 
rossum said:
Does he not believe that bacteria evolve immunity to antibiotics?
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that the Darwin-obsessed sphere of biology says bacteria “evolve” immunity to antibiotics, whereas the medical profession - which has no need to believe in and no use for the evolutionary theory of Darwin’s tree - says bacteria “develop” immunity to antibiotics.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top