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.
buffalo said:
40.png
Bradskii:
The figure for the percentage of people who are experts in their various fields associated with biology who accept the theory, and have written a gazillion papers based on the fact that it is the best theory available, runs to something like 97%.
Click to expand...
Oh boy - we do not do science by consensus.
Click to expand...
Exactly! We do science by cherrypicking quotes on the internet.
 
To be clear, no one here is doing science, theoretical, experimental or applied.
 
Exactly. But some are pointing to what actual scientists have discovered, and others are cherrypicking quotes from scientists and contradicting what those exact same scientists actually mean.
 
From what I’ve read, what Buffalo does is quote articles that speak to new scientific findings or contradictions and unexplainable oddities in our understanding of nature, even though they are likely to be couched in evolutionary terms, as they must, given that today it is taken to be a truth to which all must adhere. Reading the article talking about evolution and missing those points, the reader may think he’s nuts or cherry picking a few quotes from the totality of the article. I’ve personally derived a lot from his posts although we might not agree on a number of issues.
 
This discussion is about a secular article of faith that all must accept. Buffalo has done a fine job of explaining the faults with this particular idea.
 
rossum said:
The original scaffolding was just solid rock, like the arch itself. Part of the rock eroded, leaving the arch
Click to expand...
Once again we are left with something less than what was before, aka devolution. It just keeps cropping up over and over.
 
Atreju said:
But some are pointing to what actual scientists have discovered, and others are cherrypicking quotes from scientists and contradicting what those exact same scientists actually mean.
Click to expand...
I link to the papers so everyone can read them.
 
The scientific method works and experiments produce reproducible results because God created an orderly universe. Gravity appears to work every time. But, God could change that.
 
Aloysium said:
From what I’ve read, what Buffalo does is quote articles that speak to new scientific findings or contradictions and unexplainable oddities in our understanding of nature, even though they are likely to be couched in evolutionary terms, as they must, given that today it is taken to be a truth to which all must adhere. Reading the article talking about evolution and missing those points, the reader may think he’s nuts or cherry picking a few quotes from the totality of the article. I’ve personally derived a lot from his posts although we might not agree on a number of issues.
Click to expand...
Thank you. You get it and so do a few others here. One has to pick important points and conclusions that are couched in evo lingo and affirmation. (exactly)

The top evo’s have acknowledged that a new paradigm is at hand. Too bad there are so many holding out here for the evolution fairytale. They have to, or…
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
Gravity appears to work every time. But, God could change that.
Click to expand...
He did that and more, turning water into wine, healing the sick and bringing the dead to life, multiplying the loaves and fish, calming the storm and walking on water, not to mention appearing in a locked room and rising from the dead and up into the sky, resurrecting us into eternity. As the existential Gound of all there is, in all places and all times, everything is in accordance with His will, all of us, possessing a free will, all that we are subject to included, that we might come to know Him and share in His Glory.
 
Last edited:
Beyond_Reason said:
They do have precursors. More fossil evidence has emerged since Darwin, and even since Gould. But to the general point, you’re basically asking why tree branches are thickest closest to the trunk.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not what I’m asking. The Cambrian explosion doesn’t resemble anthing like single tree - it resembles a whole bunch of trees that are unrelated to each other.
Pre-Cambrian life consisted of soft-bodied organisms like worms and sponges. Then suddenly, during the Cambrian explosion, vertebrates like fish appear without any evolutionary ancestors. If this is evidence of a contiguous process of biological evolution, you could have fooled me.

“”“Eldredge and Gould certainly would agree that some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too. For example the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It’s as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history” - Richard Dawkins, 1996, referring to the Cambrian explosion.
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
The figure for the percentage of people who are experts in their various fields associated with biology who accept the theory, and have written a gazillion papers based on the fact that it is the best theory available, runs to something like 97%.
Click to expand...
Big deal. The “best theory available” regarding abiogenesis is that a living, reproducing organism arose out of inanimate matter, which a rational, scientifically-aware mind should immediately dismiss as impossible nonsense.

Furthermore, it’s likely that 97% of evolutionary biologists are atheists, who would believe in evolution even if there were no evidence for it. All their vacuous, useless, untestable theorising is simply telling themselves what they want to hear.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Click to expand...
Er, Mr. Darwin, did you not notice the Cambrian explosion ?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Once again we are left with something less than what was before, aka devolution. It just keeps cropping up over and over.
Click to expand...
Evolution is change. Your devolution is change. All you are doing is confirming evolution while calling by a different name.

Tell us when the common cold virus will have ‘devolved’ so far that it can no longer infect humans. If, as you say, it is constantly losing information then at some point it will no longer have the information it needs to infect humans. What about influenza? When do you estimate that will no longer be infectious?

Loss of information has observable effects. Tell us when we will see these effects please. The future of large parts of the pharmaceutical industry is depending on you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top