Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As others have noted "Darwinian evolution" is out of date, but we can save that for your post featuring Denton's argument.I’m often accused of contrarian views that run counter to fact or science.
my detractors all seem to assume That Darwinian evolution ( which doesn’t make it as a proper theory anyway) is now established as THE process of evolution , not what it really is - an overeach of conclusions based on too limited a data set, and that functionalist adaptation cannot explain the path to the main classes of life.
Abiogenesis is not evolution. It is not part of any theory of evolution from Darwin's to the Modern synthesis and beyond. I suggest you not include abiogenesis as part of your "EVOLUTION in crisis" debate (whether it is in Denton's book or not.)My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.
OK, Mike, this "detractor" notion is getting annoying. Those who disagree with you in these threads are not some coherent group. We don't think about you when you are gone. We argue with you because we think the things you are presenting are wrong.The reality is my detractors seem to get their views from mass media, and they do not study enough , or know enough to notice my views are a mainstream in the minds of many evolutinary biologists. These are not creatonists but scientists who see The same problems I do.
This is abiogenesis again. It has nothing to do with "darwinian thinking".This is a vast subject and far from closed .
It takes an entire book just to describe the different schools of thought attempting To address the serious problems with limitations of darwinian thinking , as other than fine micro adaptation, and why for example neither autocatalytic sets nor RNA world cut it as a solution To the second problem I mention.
I'm convinced part of the problem is that many here have only read the one Book.I urge all to read a single book.
The origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory, even Darwin's, and "predisposed to life" is that "fine tuning" argument that also has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If I were you, I'd stay away from those during your presentation of Denton's critique of evolution as neither are related. (Let's get this out of the way here, and not muddy up the discussion on the evolution theory critique.)“ Michael Denton - evolution still a theory in crisis “
The consensus of many evolutionary biologists seems to be that present theories and Darwinian assumptioms and present biological science can never explain life, that the universe must be somehow predisposed to life, because random chemical and biological process can Never account for what we see.
Wow! "illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism" really packs in the error and the invective. Let's quickly summarize them:So my views are mainstream science born of study, and much reading unlike the illinformed atheist kneejerk faith in Darwinism , who refuse to study counter arguments. I study both sides of all arguments, but then I am a scientist.
Who are "these"? The only person you have mentioned is Michael Denton who is an ID creationist. (But, you can save these for the discussion of Denton's critique if you like.)These are not creationists speaking, but evolutionary biologists who see the same problems I do, but articulate them a great deal better. They should , it’s their specialism not mine.
I've read plenty of books on evolutionary theory at the popular science level (which is the level Denton's book is at). This discussion should be adequately informed through quotation of Denton's book and summary of his argument, evidence, and critique.You can either study it or stay illinformed .
Read that one book. Plenty of references
I can refer to other books I have but the essence is there.
NDEs are not part of evolutionary theory nor the counter and you should avoid discussing them when you get to Denton's arguments.My views on NDE which comments on the nature of consciousness , is also a big part of the question of life and is the hardest puzzle of life that chemistry can never solve, because it lies beyond the boundaries of chemistry, are also shaped by good mainstream science. The illinformed here seem to have no concept of how wide and deep that scientific literature is, and how many researchers and medics accept it.
My information doesn't come from 2-minute videos and I don't think that is the case with anyone willing to take on debate with you here.we live in a fast food , quick fix, two minute video explains all world. I don’t.
That isn’t the world of science, which is seeing further by climbing a mountain of knowledge by study.
there is no 2 minute video to why Darwinism doesn’t work.
I sincerely doubt that a book from an ID creationist who works for a ID creationist propaganda mill is the best review of current evolutionary science at the pop-sci level. It would be like reading Dawkins to understand the current positions of Christianity.It takes a book. Read it. It’s a good review of where evolutionary science is at, and the holes it can’t fill.
What's to stop God using evolution to make us?
God stopped Himself from using evolution to make us when He created us in an instant of time.
Only on paper.
Well God certainly had a choice back then, didn't He?
What does His autobiography say He choose?
He was coauthorYou do know that an autobiography is when someone writes a book about themselves, right? The Bible does not qualify since every time God speaks it's someone quoting Him or it describes God's actions and words.
He was coauthor
I think that @Mountainmike was perhaps unnerved to find that at least 2 people had already read it.Was this a hit and run? I guess we can all hope that MM is compiling all his notes from this book to have an in depth discussion since he's been taken up on his "challenge" to read it and refute it. Any day now.
What does God do that evolution does not?
What does the soul do that the brain does not?
What does God do that evolution does not?
What does the soul do that the brain does not?
I have no hope MM will properly respond.We're going to find out ........................................
I have no hope MM will properly respond.
I don't know who else we are all waiting to respond to our posts. (Though maybe AV wrote something I didn't see.)My comment wasn't actually 'for' MM. But I guess it could be taken in that vein as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?