We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Buzzard3]

Where did you get the water?

Are you saying God intervenes and bends his natural laws every time I boil some water?

 

[Buzzard3]

This is entirely wrong about evolution. You can stop trying now as you have reached maximal wrongness on the topic.

It's entirely wrong? Really?

I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?

 

[Buzzard3]

What use would I have for a "belief system". Religion was useless, I miss absolutely nothing about religion because it offered me nothing useful.

If it makes you happy to believe that there is no God, that you're just an accidental bag of chemicals and that this life is all there is to existence, good luck to you.

 

[Buzzard3]

Evolution is a science, not a belief system or the basis of one. It is certainly not the basis of "atheist belief".

The theory of evolution certainly supports atheism, which explains why so many atheists are psychologically addicted to it and defend it so zealously.

It's interesting that more than 80% (if memory serves) of evolutionary biologists are atheists. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[Buzzard3]

Show me one. Show me a published paper that is nothing more than a dreamed up story.

Almost every scientific paper that attempts to explain how prehistoric life-forms evolved will contain hypotheses that can't be tested, which amounts to pseudo-scientific story-telling, not true science.

 

[Buzzard3]

It's been directly observed that evolution proceeds by mutation and natural selection.

No one has ever observed any prehistoric life-form evolving via mutation and natural selection.

As even honest YECs admit, the evidence shows common descent. For example, evolutionary theory predicted that lungfish would be more closely related to humans than they would be to other fish. And that prediction has been observed.This would make no sense whatever if creationism were true, but it's another confirmation of Darwin's theory.

It's alleged that fish are the common ancestor of reptiles and mammals, for example, but no one can prove that reptiles and mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

The process of common could have been the result of a supernatural process ... unless you can prove that it could not have been the result of a supernatural process.

 

[Buzzard3]

You and I for example, were produced by natural processes.

Humans descended from bacteria via a natural process?

 

[Buzzard3]

Do you think that God isn't involved in every particle and force in the universe?

God is probably involved somehow in every particle and force in the universe.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's only true if your metaphysic is like a deist's, i.e., God creates like one spins a top so that once it gets going, it's on its own. But that is not the metaphysic of classical Christianity. "In him all things hold together" (Col. 1.17). Accordingly, God doesn't just create but also sustains all things in their existence. All things that make boiling water possible are sustained in their existence, including those properties they regularly exhibit. No, God isn't stepping in to help since God never stepped out. What makes it "natural" is that we can observe their working and regularity (order), and we can give an account of their properties without recourse to divine intervention, but that is only because there is (or at least seems to be) an inherent order in which they operate.

That order, itself, is simply assumed by science, and for good reason. But we don't really have an account for the appearance of order in the universe. Perhaps the best option out there concerns entropy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I am sure some of the smarter folks on the board have ideas, too. But we can't get outside of the universe to see it as a whole and give an account. As Einstein remarked, the great mystery of the universe is its comprehensibility. At any rate, for a robust Christian metaphysic, that order is an act of divine grace that sustains all things in an orderly way so that water always boils under the same conditions. In short, it's all a miracle and an act of divine influence.

Yes, well I've always believed that we little humans are bobbing around on a unfathomable ocean of mystery.

 

[Ophiolite]

Pray tell, how can an explanation of how mammals (allegedly) descended from fish, for example, be "validated"?

• Comparative anatomy
• Developmental biology
• Consistent sequential fossil characteristics
• DNA comparisons
• Nested hierarchy of identified relationships

However, there is no point in providing you with examples of each of these because, as per my previous remarkcs, your mind is utterly closed to considering the evidence. Metaphoricallly, you are not only deaf, but also blind and devoid of olfactory input, but - unfortunately - you are not dumb, as evidenced by your seemingly endless mantra of wholly unsupported assertions.

The case has been made for evolution via hundreds of thousands of research papers by tens of thousands of motivated, dedicated scientists. Your response has been and continues to be nothing more than "I don't believe it". I note that the universe and the process of evolution are indifferent to your disbelief. Personally, I find it rather sad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

... and viz-a-viz the history of life on earth, the theory of evolution amounts to nothing more than a bedtime story, yet atheists worship it as a scientifically established fact.

Because it is a scientific fact. In science, a theory explains facts.

 

[Buzzard3]

• Comparative anatomy
• Developmental biology
• Consistent sequential fossil characteristics
• DNA comparisons
• Nested hierarchy of identified relationships

... all of which support the best available scientific explanation (ToE), but none of which prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

And I suggest that without knowing the true history of life on earth, a nested hierarchy based on something as unreliable as the the fossil record is meaningless.
The true history could be vastly different to what fossils indicate, simply bcoz vast numbers of organisms that existed may never have been fossilised.

you are not dumb

Sometimes I'm dumb.

your seemingly endless mantra of wholly unsupported assertions.

Such as?

The case has been made for evolution via hundreds of thousands of research papers by tens of thousands of motivated, dedicated scientists. Your response has been and continues to be nothing more than "I don't believe it".

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth ... but no one can so much as prove that that history is the result of a natural process, which means anyone who claims to know what that process actually was is talking baloney.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because it is a scientific fact. In science, a theory explains facts.

It's not a scientific fact that the history of life on earth is the result of a biological process described by the theory of evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

... all of which support the best available scientific explanation (ToE), but none of which prove that mammals descended from fish via a natural process.

And I suggest that without knowing the true history of life on earth, a nested hierarchy based on something as unreliable as the the fossil record is meaningless.
The true history could be vastly different to what fossils indicate, simply bcoz vast numbers of organisms that existed may never have been fossilised.

Sometimes I'm dumb.

Such as?

I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific explanation for what produced the history of life on earth ... but no one can so much as prove that that history is the result of a natural process, which means anyone who claims to know what that process actually was is talking baloney.

Pulus cantor dlividium nosi elotim vraga.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not a scientific fact that the history of life on earth is the result of a biological process described by the theory of evolution.

But it is though. You just saying that it isn't doesn't mean you are correct.

If you're correct, then show the evidence for your claim being correct.

 

[BCP1928]

It's entirely wrong? Really?

I'm curious, how did you prove that a natural process was responsible for mammals descending from fish, for example?

By looking at the evidence, scientists have concluded that the theory of evolution is the best explanation available, and since there is no evidence which contradicts it and no more credible explanation is available, it is accepted provisionally, the basis on which all science theories are accepted. Is that what you mean by "prove?"

 

[BCP1928]

It's not a scientific fact that the history of life on earth is the result of a biological process described by the theory of evolution.

No, a theory is not a scientific fact. A theory is a coherent explanation of facts. The problem you're having with the theory of evolution is that currently there are no facts which contradict it and no better explanation has been suggested.

 

[AV1611VET]

Claiming to be wise about what produced the history of life on earth, atheists who attribute that history to a wholly natural process become fools, who in effect worship nature instead of giving glory to their Creator.

Yes, indeed.

Notice too this passage:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In evolution, we're known as "Homo sapiens," which means "wise men."

Thus I submit that calling oneself "wise" can (and has) led to saying in one's heart, "there is no God."

In other words, embracing evolution can (and does) lead to atheism.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, indeed.

Notice too this passage:

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In evolution, we're known as "Homo sapiens," which means "wise men."

Thus I submit that calling oneself "wise" can (and has) led to saying in one's heart, "there is no God."

In other words, embracing evolution can (and does) lead to atheism.

So you say, based on an extra-Biblical reading and adding to the Bible. As per your usual MO.

 

[public hermit]

In other words, embracing evolution can (and does) lead to atheism.

You said embracing evolution leads to atheism. The lie detector determined that was a lie.