Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[AV1611VET]

A minor Greek goddess.

Goddess of what?

 

[sjastro]

What I see is actually evolutionists claiming the theory of evolution is the life formed on Earth and the Hand of God had nothing to do with bring life about. Evolutionists have put together this package without 100% proof that this is how it happened. No research team was there to see the mutations take place and evolve. Evolutionists rely on the bones that they dug up in the ground, a very incomplete collection (hence the ghost species).

This has been mentioned on numerous occasions but the existence or non existence of God is unfalsifiable in science. If atheists think science proves God does not exist or the religiously inclined believe God needs to be involved in science, then they are all barking up the wrong tree.

In 1979 the Nobel Prize in physics was won by Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salem, two polar opposite individuals when it came to religion. Weinberg was the militant atheist who blamed the world's problems on religion while Salem during a Nobel Prize acceptance speech reflected on his faith, quoting the Qur’an to emphasize awe and wonder at the universe’s design.
Their personal belief or the lack of it played no role in the development of Electroweak theory for which they won the Nobel Prize for.

To use an analogy science is like detective work where it is very rare to have an eyewitness or first hand account. When theories such as Evolution or the Big Bang make a string of predictions that are verified by experiment and observation it strengthens the premise about these unobservable events.

There are scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution and they are ridiculed and laughed at by their colleagues. It's like being in a secret society, members keep their mouths shut about the inner workings. But I do understand like you said, Sabine does have her own ax to grind so I listen and weigh each thing she says.

Oh well, God bless you.

This is human behaviour at work one can argue Sabine is also making personal attacks against scientists in her videos.
One of the more valid criticisms directed against science is your so called secret society. Scientists have been particularly bad, they either have not expressed science to the general public or in a poor way where the message is lost.
This has been particularly relevant in global warming discussions where scepticism is not based on science but conspiracy theories and the usual questioning of the credibility of scientists.

These days scientists are being educated on how to convey science to the general public.

 

[sjastro]

Her personal experiences and received "unfairness" (I judge it not) is no excuse for her to make broad claims against all of science. She is fortifying the formidable forces aligned against science, knowledge, facts, etc. and she knows what she is doing. With regards to her videos, on actual science I ignore them now, and her politics video I operate in "Flamethrower first, ask questions second" mode.

I'm not justifying her motives only describing them.
One of the major criticisms of Sabine is making commentaries outside her field of expertise which in social media is fueling the ignorance and prejudice against science instead of educating the public.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll be honest with you, nothing can convince me. I am a practicing Catholic and not even the easing up from the Catholic Church on evolution has altered my views.

I did 20+ years of Catholicism in the 20th century. I recall no "easing up" on evolution. Nor, did they ever talk about it or any other science. (Now abortion and other culture war politics, they were all over that and twice on Sunday, but never science.)

Like some of the stuff that astronomers and astrophysicists make predictions on about objects millions of light years away,

I know more about these things, and frankly, I think you are talking about measurements of things millions and billions of light years away.

evolutionists making these predictions (I know this is not the right word to use but I am having a mental block) about things that happened hundreds of millions of years ago I feel is really ridiculous and unnecessary.

Again, measurements and observations of the past. What about it is ridiculous or "unnecessary"?

I'm fascinated with the past but I wouldn't have made a job out of it (but then again, "enquiring want to know"). When you are talking about such large distances, you can really only give a somewhat educated guess (but nothing that I would bet any money on and absolutely nothing I would use to shape policies in our society).

Well I did, and we make measurements of what happened or are far away or hard to access. Our results are made on *data* not "guesses", educated or otherwise.

In my eyes, God started the whole "something out of nothing". It may not have gone down quite like it did in the Genesis. Sorry, I couldn't give a better answer. I appreciate you asking though. God bless you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Goddess of what?

Stars, I think. Some kind of mystical religious notions about how the gods make them move. Kinda YEC in classical form.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stars, I think.

Try science.

Some kind of mystical religious notions about how the gods make them move.

God created the stars.

And He gave each and every one of them names.

Kinda YEC in classical form.

What?

 

[The Barbarian]

Try science.

Nope. Science didn't exist at that time Greeks imagined that one. Science had rudimentary beginnings in the Ionian islands nearly a thousand years after some religious people invented Urania. YEC of the time.

God created the stars.

That's what the Greeks said. The difference is, now we have a very good idea how He did it. No Urania necessary. Except maybe for some kind of very early YEC.

You really should check the Biblical reference; it could be enlightening for you.

 

[FaithT]

I did 20+ years of Catholicism in the 20th century. I recall no "easing up" on evolution. Nor, did they ever talk about it or any other science. (Now abortion and other culture war politics, they were all over that and twice on Sunday, but never science.)

I know more about these things, and frankly, I think you are talking about measurements of things millions and billions of light years away.

Again, measurements and observations of the past. What about it is ridiculous or "unnecessary"?

Well I did, and we make measurements of what happened or are far away or hard to access. Our results are made on *data* not "guesses", educated or otherwise.

Catholics are free to believe in theistic evolution or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

Yup.

Q: Is Urania the muse of science?

AI Overview: Yes, Urania is the muse associated with astronomy and, more broadly, with the exact sciences. In Greek mythology, she is one of the nine Muses, daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, and is specifically known for inspiring those who study the heavens and the cosmos.

Science didn't exist at that time Greeks imagined that one.

Really?

What's this?

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Science had rudimentary beginnings in the Ionian islands nearly a thousand years after some religious people invented Urania.

Do you know what a fallen angel is?

YEC of the time.

YEC, OEC, Embedded Age, atheist, Old Testament saint, paperboy, soldier ... what about it?

That's what the Greeks said.

Good.

That puts them head and shoulders ahead of our best astronomers today.

The difference is, now we have a very good idea how He did it.

On paper.

No Urania necessary.

Urania didn't create the stars in the first place.

God did.

Do you know what a fallen angel is?

Except maybe for some kind of very early YEC.

Good.

He knows more than any astronomer today how the stars came into existence.

(Okay ... most astronomers.)

You really should check the Biblical reference; it could be enlightening for you.

Any particular verse comes to mind?

 

[FaithT]

Ó

Yup.

Q: Is Urania the muse of science?

AI Overview: Yes, Urania is the muse associated with astronomy and, more broadly, with the exact sciences. In Greek mythology, she is one of the nine Muses, daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, and is specifically known for inspiring those who study the heavens and the cosmos.



Really?

What's this?

Daniel 1:4 Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.



Do you know what a fallen angel is?



YEC, OEC, Embedded Age, atheist, Old Testament saint, paperboy, soldier ... what about it?



Good.

That puts them head and shoulders ahead of our best astronomers today.



On paper.



Urania didn't create the stars in the first place.

God did.

Do you know what a fallen angel is?



Good.

He knows more than any astronomer today how the stars came into existence.

(Okay ... most astronomers.)



Any particular verse comes to mind?

That Scripture you quoted doesn’t really say anything about science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no Holy Spirit of science.

(completely missed my reference)

A minor Greek goddess. Has nothing whatever to do with the way science works.

You really should check the Biblical reference; it could be enlightening for you.

Oh, AV's pulling his old and trite 'Satanic Muses' canard again it seems.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ó

That Scripture you quoted doesn’t really say anything about science.

The King James Version does, actually, and AV is King James Version Only.

Plus, in the end, he just doesn't care. He'll use any scripture, and twist any scripture to make science out to be a negative. Especially his claim that the classical muses of the Greeks and Romans were actually fallen angels connected to Satan. Yeah.

 

[Larniavc]

Evolutionists have put together this package without 100% proof that this is how it happened.

How many times do you have to be told that science does not deal in proof?

Only maths deals in proof (and alcohol I suppose).

There is always some new information that could overturn the established paradigm. Any scientist who actuates a paradigm shift becomes as famous as Einstein, Watson and Crick or Marie Currie.

It’s what every scientist aspire to!

 

[Larniavc]

There are scientists who disagree with the theory of evolution and they are ridiculed and laughed at by their colleagues.

There are people today who think Jesus was an alien. They get laughed at. In the past they’d get slung in jail or killed for wrong think.

Being laughed at is the natural consequence of being an idiot.

 

[AV1611VET]

That Scripture you quoted doesn’t really say anything about science.

Is that because science didn't exist?

Did he just make up that word?

 

[AV1611VET]

There are people today who think Jesus was an alien.

There are academians today who consider the Jews as "ancient goat-herding desert nomads".

And don't think they use the term "goat" just arbitrarily, when "sheep" would be more appropriate.

It has satanic connotations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There are academians today who consider the Jews as "ancient goat-herding desert nomads".

And don't think they use the term "goat" just arbitrarily, when "sheep" would be more appropriate.

It has satanic connotations.

You ever seen goats? They are ridiculously hardy animals, and a lot more useful than sheep; milk, meat, wool, and horns, all useful for anyone in an arid environment, AND also one of the non-fussiest eaters out there next to pigs.

Only in your mind does it have satanic connotations.

 

[AV1611VET]

You ever seen goats? They are ridiculously hardy animals, and a lot more useful than sheep; milk, meat, wool, and horns, all useful for anyone in an arid environment, AND also one of the non-fussiest eaters out there next to pigs.

Nice try.

Only in your mind does it have satanic connotations.

Why didn't Jesus compare us to goats then?

Why did He prefer "sheep"?

In addition:

Mt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nice try.

I'm not wrong. Goats are a god-send to farmer in arid locations.

Why didn't Jesus compare us to goats then?

Why did He prefer "sheep"?

In addition:

Mt 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
Mt 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Because sheep are easier to lead with a shepherd, while goats need a goatherd and are notoriously stubborn creatures. It's called an allegory, AV, which many a farmer would recognise and especially pastoral farmers which was the mainstay of certain areas in the world in the early BC/AD era in the Middle East.

Also, when did you start abbreviating Bible verse names?

 

[River Jordan]

I'll be honest with you, nothing can convince me.

It's too bad you didn't admit that at the start, it would have saved a few people a lot of time. But why have you been asking people to post and explain the science to you if you had already decided you would never accept any of it?

Seems very disingenuous to me.