E
edwest
Guest
It’s not my personal opinion. This is evidence of wrong/inappropriate indoctrination material in textbooks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
buffalo
Guest
It is science. Looking for evidence of design through experiment and observation is science. It is as science as your claim evo theory is. In fact it is observable, repeatable and predictable.Design is not science
E
edwest
Guest
Evolution cannot be verified. But the opposite thought will be posted here forever. As in, forever.
B
buffalo
Guest
“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.” Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000
NON-NEGOTIABILITY OF MATERIALISM: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door… To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.”16—Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1997
NON-NEGOTIABILITY OF MATERIALISM: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door… To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, than miracles may happen.”16—Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Books, 1997
B
buffalo
Guest
We can see we have two views of science: Science following the evidence wherever it leads and science following the evidence only where materialism allows.
E
edwest
Guest
Thank you. I hope some reading will reconsider what scientists want. What Mr. Weinberg is saying is not a bunch of empty words.
B
Bradskii
Guest
What do you mean by verified? It’s the best theory available. Do you have another that doesn’t involve religious beliefs?Evolution cannot be verified. But the opposite thought will be posted here forever. As in, forever.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Straw man. One man cannot represent ‘science’. What you have posted are the opinions of one person.Thank you. I hope some reading will reconsider what scientists want. What Mr. Weinberg is saying is not a bunch of empty words.
Science Must Destroy Religion | Sam Harris
I
IWantGod
Guest
I can’t argue with that.The Word witnessed the fall of Satan like lightning from heaven, a fall before our own, involving many angels causing the corruption of nature, bringing disharmony into the world. As the forces of nature turned to their self-interest, plasmids became viruses.
A
Aloysium
Guest
The issue is how it happened. I cannot see it being possible through random chemical activity.
I haven’t totally thought this out, but I loved the video, and here’s a chance to post it.
The machines in the video above cycle through random collections of letters. Potentially meaningful sequences are tagged red and become full-blown words. Note the number of failures at a meaningful combination. Imagine a set of letters that have meaning and then glitching as they are reproduced, even if the total number remains the same, what it would take to get a new meaningful result. And, with living forms, we are not talking about a word, or a phrase, but an encyclopedia. It’s not a matter of billions of years, rather trillions multiplied by trillions of attempts.
I realize I am responding to believers of the evolutionary mythos, but hoping someone with an open mind is listening in.
I haven’t totally thought this out, but I loved the video, and here’s a chance to post it.
The machines in the video above cycle through random collections of letters. Potentially meaningful sequences are tagged red and become full-blown words. Note the number of failures at a meaningful combination. Imagine a set of letters that have meaning and then glitching as they are reproduced, even if the total number remains the same, what it would take to get a new meaningful result. And, with living forms, we are not talking about a word, or a phrase, but an encyclopedia. It’s not a matter of billions of years, rather trillions multiplied by trillions of attempts.
I realize I am responding to believers of the evolutionary mythos, but hoping someone with an open mind is listening in.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Meanwhile the organism evolves brain matter that just so happens to perfectly control a heart. How does natural selection make it possible for a brain and a heart to evolve separately yet both be perfectdly attuned to one another?A valve is just a loose flap of skin. A mutation can produce a loose flap of skin. It won’t work very well, but it works better than no flap. Later mutations can improve the working of the initial flap.
And of course, the creature survived - somehow - before any valves at all evolved … and - even before any veins evolved .- somehow …Veins also have valves, and there are animals like Amphioxus with a circulatory system and no heart – blood is circulated by body movements. It is perfectly possible that valves evolved before hearts just to keep blood circulating in one direction.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
This sounds like a very interesting “conversion”. I’m sure many of us here would be interested in how and why you went from a “happy evolutionist” to a doubter and evo-infidel.Even when I was a happy evolutionist back in June
I agree; and I would suggest that “whenever it (the genetic code) changed in a fundamental way” means whenever one genus was superseded by another genus - which must have occured millions of times if life began as microbes and “evolved” into all the various life-forms that have existed on earth.I still thought it absurd to think this process wasn’t at least guided by a divine hand and his angels who he sets over the cosmos. Now that I know more about the DNA I think even that is a tad generous and that God had to have been directly involved, at least: (1) when the first life form showed up, (2) when the genetic code first showed up, and (3) whenever new information was infused into the genetic code (whenever it changed in a fundamental way).
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
The simplistic explanation you keep repeating like a mindless mantra proves grossly inadequate when it comes to macroevolution - such as the claimed evolution of new organs and new brain matter. Perhaps you’ve never stopped to think deeper than the surface of what you’ve been taught and haven’t considered the absurdly-improbable logistics that evolutionary theory demands.The mechanism by which most evolution comes about just isn’t that complicated. Mutation occurs. Is it beneficial? If so, the fitness of the creature is enhanced and so is it’s reproductive output. If it’s not beneficial, the creature dies and/or has a more limited reproductive output - killing out the mutation.
Ya got that right - it’s way too unsophisticated to explain the changes in organisms that are evident in the fossil record. Childish, superifical, vague explanations rarely make good science.This isn’t sophisticated. I’m not exaggerating when I say that kids understand this.
I suspect that “junk DNA” is mostly DNA whose function is not yet understood (some “junk” DNA may resulted from the Fall). And if “junk DNA” are remnants of long-lost anatomical features that have disppeared without a trace, how come their respective DNA remains?A lot of the “junk” DNA present in every species are the remnants of the animals they used to be.
Truth is more important to me than science and the opinions of academia.Well, you’d certainly not take a place among credible academia…
“the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” - 1Cor 3:19.
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
[No message]
I
IWantGod
Guest
Nice picture.
E
Edgar
Guest
I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. Vonsalza told buffalo, “We can literally show you the evolution of your eye”, which is not a theory but an empirical claim - ie, physical, observable evidence. Therefore one can legitimately demand PROOF of sucn an empirical claim.You should know by now that using the word “proved” in science is an error. Do you think that Newton’s theory of gravity was ever “proved”?
E
Edgar
Guest
Precisely - ToE is the godless explanation for the history of life. Does that mean it’s the truth?Not at all. It stems from the fact that virtually all the stuff in the rocks doesn’t exist any more and the stuff that exists is virtually absent from the rocks. Life has obviously experienced multiple turnovers in diversity. Evolution is the most logical answer that doesn’t require the supernatural.
I
IWantGod
Guest
Why is it a godless explanation? What do you mean by that? Is the natural formation of planets a Godless explanation? If so, does that make it not true?Precisely - ToE is the godless explanation for the history of life.
E
Edgar
Guest
Poor analogy. For starters, you can easily test the veractiy of your Ford manual; you can then also test whether your Ford manual requires divine intervention for its instructions to work. With ToE, you can do neither.It’s why I don’t try to synthesize my Ford repair manual with my religion when I’m working on my truck. I don’t need it in order to complete my task. But this doesn’t mean my Ford repair manual requires that there isn’t a God.
Last edited:
E
Edgar
Guest
Because it’s science. That doesn’t mean it’s the truth, but it’s believed to be truth by atheists - because this deeply flawed and weak theory is the best science can come up.Why is it a godless explanation?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.