Evolution and Science

[muffler dragon]

As all you have written is a critique of my post without actual arguments against it, there is little more I could do with it.

Well... that all depends on what coherent thought you actually want to bring about. The amount of non sequiturs that you propound are numerous. Furthermore, I'm not about to help someone see the faults in their statements/beliefs that they place on others.

 

[Torah Lishmah]

Would you care to explain?

Sure. The theory of evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but that is a bold face lie. It's not science at all. It's a religion/philosophy.

Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't accepted as science even though the mathematics [which is an exact science] were complete. It was only accepted years later when it was demonstrated during an eclipse.


More info----> Google search links

 

[pat34lee]

Well... that all depends on what coherent thought you actually want to bring about. The amount of non sequiturs that you propound are numerous. Furthermore, I'm not about to help someone see the faults in their statements/beliefs that they place on others.

If there is no information going both ways, there is no debate. Even if you were correct concerning the proposed flaws in my style, that does not refute any of the arguments I made.

 

[aniello]

Would you care to explain?

Sure. The theory of evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but that is a bold face lie. It's not science at all. It's a religion/philosophy.

Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't accepted as science even though the mathematics [which is an exact science] were complete. It was only accepted years later when it was demonstrated during an eclipse.


More info----> Google search links

Excellent summary!

Q.E.D. and Entropy too puts the true Source of "E" in view.

XDenax, isn't it time we all here have a little talk about Gibbs Free Energy? I mean, it's a freebie after all.

Gibbs Free Energy

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy

Perhaps Woffed would be the best to ask about Enthalpy and then the increase of Disorder aka ?(Entropy). Is being born the original time endothermic, exothermic or anisotropic, but maybe it's isotropic?

And now, the question of ultimate paramount importance! Did Entropy enter the Universe before, or after, the fall, or was it the summer, of Adam and Eve?

Is it true that Immanuel can't(, ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)

or that Mussorgsky was modest?

Modest Mussorgsky - Night on Bald Mountain (Arr. Rimsky-Korsakov) - YouTube

Mussorgsky received recognition in The Calculus in my old Thomas Calculus book back in the 50s.

Well time to return to my pulling wings off flies and feed my herd of toads. My cat is so quick, brings 'em to me. Are flies kosher?

If toads had wings they wouldn't bump their rumbas when they hop. When they do a fandango that's a different case entirely.

T.L. is correct.

 

[xDenax]

Sure. The theory of evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but that is a bold face lie. It's not science at all. It's a religion/philosophy.

Ah, okay. Well, I have to say you are incorrect but I'm not going to argue with you. It's pointless. I will say that to claim evolution is my (or anyone else's) religion is ridiculous.

 

[aniello]

Ah, okay. Well, I have to say you are incorrect but I'm not going to argue with you. It's pointless. I will say that to claim evolution is my (or anyone else's) religion is ridiculous.

Ah but T.L. is documentedly dead on. To go against researched fact is pointless. In nature there is yet to be found even one documented replicated single stranded DNA, let alone a pair, or a group of replicated single stranded DNA to any double stranded form(s) to any type of transitional, let alone permanent form. In another manner of speaking, where are the "missing links"?
Medical Definition of REPLICATIVE

: of, relating to, involved in, or characterized by replication <conversion of single stranded…DNA to a double stranded replicative form—Nature>

Am looking forward to a little boy mouse having union with a little girl amoeba and hatching a pterodactyl. That would be a throw back to a possible common to both missing link progenitor.

As T.L. said it's a mere philosophy/religion. As it is said:

Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

"E" and entropy prevail.

Buona Serrata.
.

 

[muffler dragon]

If there is no information going both ways, there is no debate. Even if you were correct concerning the proposed flaws in my style, that does not refute any of the arguments I made.

Let's rehash from the very beginning.

Here is the OP:

I've been meaning to start a thread on evolution and science.While Jews,Christians,and Muslims confirm the existence of God in the Abrahamic religion, are we better off because of discoveries made in scientific fields? ... Where does it say anywhere that scienctific theory supposedly disproves God.

Two questions arise from Wesley:

1) Are humans better off because of scientific discoveries?
2) Where does scientific theory disprove God?

I responded with the following post that puts the questions in reverse order:

As for the "better off" statement of the OP, I thought I'd present this article. It summarizes my POV perfectly.

Richard Feynman on How Scientists Can Believe in God - Blog

As for scientific discoveries (evolutionary, in particular), I believe that the vast majority of scientific discoveries are beneficial to humanity. When it comes to Evolution and Faith, I've actually only found it to be an issue for YEC. Aside from that, not much.

So, I responded to Wesley's two initial questions.

Then you interject with this:

Evolution should be a problem for any Christian. Either death came through sin, as the bible states, or YHWH made a flawed planet filled with carnage and death from the beginning. If sin is not the cause of death, why would we need atonement for sin? If YHWH created death and suffering, would he be good?

Which doesn't really have anything directly to do with what I wrote above. What is a problem for Christian's doesn't pertain to me. I responded in kind, because there are obviously many Christians out there who disagree with your POV. Additionally, the sin/death/nature of G-d thing is only (at best) tangentially related to the OP. Hopefully, you can see where you went off the track in the beginning and only continued to follow up with more and more non sequiturs.

So... pat, what exactly do you want to discuss if we're going to keep this conversation going? The actual science of evolution? Whether science has benefited humanity? Whether science can actually prove or disprove a deity? The Christian doctrines of depravity, atonement, etc? Feel free to tell me and I'll let you know if I'm interested. I'm all for discussion, but I'm not going to rabbit-trail items that have little to do with the conversation other than divert.

 

[pat34lee]

Which doesn't really have anything directly to do with what I wrote above. What is a problem for Christian's doesn't pertain to me. I responded in kind, because there are obviously many Christians out there who disagree with your POV. Additionally, the sin/death/nature of G-d thing is only (at best) tangentially related to the OP. Hopefully, you can see where you went off the track in the beginning and only continued to follow up with more and more non sequiturs.

So... pat, what exactly do you want to discuss if we're going to keep this conversation going? The actual science of evolution? Whether science has benefited humanity? Whether science can actually prove or disprove a deity? The Christian doctrines of depravity, atonement, etc? Feel free to tell me and I'll let you know if I'm interested. I'm all for discussion, but I'm not going to rabbit-trail items that have little to do with the conversation other than divert.

I did limit my original statement unduly. You said that evolution should only be a problem for YECs. It should be a problem for anyone who believes that the Bible or Tanakh is the word of YHWH (God). That was my original motive for posting.

As I posted in #17 and explained in #27, and two others have since posted, evolution is not a natural science, but a philosophy; to some, a religion. Has it benefited humanity? I would say that if it has, any gain is more than offset by the waste of so many scientists working under a false premise. There have been no breakthroughs requiring common ancestry to be true that would not be made under the banner of common design.

As for disproving God, or any god; it is outside the realm of science. To do so, you would need to observe all things, inside and outside the universe, at all times. In other words, one would have to be God to disprove him.

 

[muffler dragon]

I did limit my original statement unduly. You said that evolution should only be a problem for YECs.

Point of clarification: I wrote:

I've actually only found it to be an issue for YEC

I didn't say "should only be". I said "found it to be". Hence, an experiential statement; not one that classifies as fact nor did I intend it that way. My apologies for not being clearer on this point.

It should be a problem for anyone who believes that the Bible or Tanakh is the word of YHWH (God). That was my original motive for posting.

I see that now, and understand the confusion. I, for one, have no problem being a theist, a promoter of the Torah and as a scientist (chemist by trade) as seeing a harmony between G-d and science (regardless of the discipline as far as I can tell).

As I posted in #17 and explained in #27, and two others have since posted, evolution is not a natural science, but a philosophy; to some, a religion.

And this would be debatable to me simply on semantics.

Has it benefited humanity? I would say that if it has, any gain is more than offset by the waste of so many scientists working under a false premise. There have been no breakthroughs requiring common ancestry to be true that would not be made under the banner of common design.

All of which are POVs that are personal to you, and I have no problem with you feeling this way or otherwise. It's not how I feel. Personally, I feel that scientific discoveries as an umbrella has been very beneficial to humanity, and quite possibly, the science surrounding evolutionary theory could be beneficial but I can't name cases as I'm not plugged in well enough to know.

As for disproving God, or any god; it is outside the realm of science. To do so, you would need to observe all things, inside and outside the universe, at all times. In other words, one would have to be God to disprove him.

To an extent, I agree. There is no proving/disproving G-d.

 

[visionary]

News from someone promoted one side and learned another side...Atheist Professor Renounces Evolution - Clash Daily :: Clash Daily

 

[Torah Lishmah]

Ah, okay. Well, I have to say you are incorrect but I'm not going to argue with you. It's pointless.

I don't think the evolutionists really have an argument. So your right, it's pointless. But if I'm wrong it most certainly wouldn't be the first time, nor would it be the last.

I will say that to claim evolution is my (or anyone else's) religion is ridiculous.

It would be a ridiculous claim had I meant religion in the classical sense. That's not the message I was trying to convey. That's why I attached the word philosophy. It's more like a religious philosophy. Having faith in a certain philosophy. I think it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in G-d. Evolution cannot be observed, but there's nature [G-d's creation] all around us that undeniably testifies of our Creator. I think it's a sad state of affairs when people [not you personally Dena] become so used to G-d's providence that they can no longer see how utterly dependant on Him we really are.

 

[Torah Lishmah]

Excellent summary!

Thank you.

And now, the question of ultimate paramount importance! Did Entropy enter the Universe before, or after, the fall, or was it the summer, of Adam and Eve?

Good question. Have you ever read Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer?

 

[aniello]

Thank you.


Good question. Have you ever read Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer?

No, I've not read that, thank you for the link. I'll try to get into that tomorrow.

 

[Torah Lishmah]

No, I've not read that, thank you for the link. I'll try to get into that tomorrow.

Here's a link to the free e-book in English: Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer

Download formats are to the left. That's the only one that's no longer under copyright AND is worth downloading that I've been able to find. Enjoy!

 

[aniello]

Here's a link to the free e-book in English: Pirkê de Rabbi Eliezer

Download formats are to the left. That's the only one that's no longer under copyright AND is worth downloading that I've been able to find. Enjoy!

Ah, got it downloaded, looks rather thorough in content. Will enjoy it I think. Will take a while for these old eyes to peruse.

Thank you.