Evolution is a story

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Maybe you shouldn't read so quickly. You can often miss things that way. From my post:

. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .​

Jimmy,
Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, does it?

 

[Shemjaza]

Maybe you shouldn't read so quickly. You can often miss things that way. From my post:

. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .​

That's a little like dispelling the myth of electricity as an explanation on how Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison invented copper.

Macro evolution is just evolution beyond speciation. It isn't about the origin of life and it definitely isn't about the origin of matter.

 

[quatona]

. . .which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). . .​

So why did you invent this myth, in the first place?

 

[smithed64]

Did he actually believe in a god? - for you wrote that he '....believed there was a God....' but that he believed like demons believe -- am I to conclude that Darwin was a phony-Christian?

As I am not God, I can't say for sure He was a Christian or not a Christian.

We are to judge people by the fruits that they bear.

Did what he produce, as one believing in God, that would lead others to Christ?
Did what He impart to the people something that would encourage them to continue believing that God was and is the Creator of all things?

These are just a couple of questions that could be asked on whether or not, he bore the fruits of the Spirit.

You would have to look into His life, what He did and the consequences of His actions to determine whether He was or wasn't a Christian or a Hypocrite.

EDIT:
According to His Bio, He believed in God.

 

[juvenissun]

--- invented by man

True/False ?

OK, I try again. Just argue on ONE aspect of life evolution:

The observations of life forms, microscopic and macroscopic, past and now, can be represented by the system of natural number. That is: 1, 2, 3, ... 1000, ...

Instead, the theory of evolution suggested that the history of life forms SHOULD be like the system of real numbers: Such as: 1.1111... ; 1.1221....; ...; 3.1416.... . Obviously, this can not be true because it is never observed. But, if the true history of life forms is represented by any other number system but the real number system, the theory of evolution is automatically busted.

Again, I emphasize that this is only ONE view to evaluate the idea of life evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I try again. Just argue on ONE aspect of life evolution:

The observations of life forms, microscopic and macroscopic, past and now, can be represented by the system of natural number. That is: 1, 2, 3, ... 1000, ...

Instead, the theory of evolution suggested that the history of life forms SHOULD be like the system of real numbers: Such as: 1.1111... ; 1.1221....; ...; 3.1416.... . Obviously, this can not be true because it is never observed. But, if the true history of life forms is represented by any other number system but the real number system, the theory of evolution is automatically busted.

Again, I emphasize that this is only ONE view to evaluate the idea of life evolution.

Bad analogy since the relationship between close species is like rational numbers and not whole numbers. Why did you choose an analogy that disagrees with you?

 

[And-U-Say]

--- invented by man
--- in order to exclude God from his life.

Dr Henry M. Morris III
ICR.ORG

True/False ?

False, obviously.

Almost all parts of the knowledge gained from Science disagree with your book. Examples:

Chemistry was invented by man to show that unknown phenomena (like fire, water tuning to ice) were not spiritual in order to exclude god from his life.

Meteorology was invented by man to show that rain, wind, lightning, and storms were not spiritual in order to exclude god from his life.

Geology was invented by man to show that earthquakes were not spiritual in order to exclude god from his life.

Astronomy was invented by man to show that solar and planetary motion were not spiritual in order to exclude god from his life.

Seeing a trend here? I could go on for pages. Every Scientific discovery has some impact on the validity of your book. You are obsessed with evolution, but you might as well be obsessed with the the whole darn thing.

Evolution is no different from any other gained knowledge. It was not "invented" to discredit your superstition, it was discovered to be an accurate picture of the real world.

Deal with it.

 

[And-U-Say]

It's hard to know who's parodying who on this thread so far.

Poe's law in action.

 

[USincognito]

It's the most fantastical fiction ever dreamt up. With no basis in science or reason, it's perpetuation can only be attributed to intentional and self-inflicted delusion in a desperate attempt to suppress the unavoidable reality of the Creator and King.

There's an awful lot of evidence for something you desperately wish to be fiction and there's a whole bunch of Christians who accept it based on that evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

True/False ?

True

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was still a Christian at the point where he wrote The Origin of Species.

So?

Maybe he wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races as a Dear John letter?

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't the Macro argument a red herring? Just explain how that does that again please?

Sure.

An ape takes baby steps from Boston and arrives in L.A. as a man.

 

[juvenissun]

Bad analogy since the relationship between close species is like rational numbers and not whole numbers. Why did you choose an analogy that disagrees with you?

We do not see the effect similar to the rational number system. It IS a feature like the natural number.

Give me an example that species 4 evolved into 4.1111 and then 4.1112 ... . Then 5 to 5.1111 ....

It did not, does not and will not happen.
I guess it does not even happen at the genetic level.

 

[Speedwell]

We do not see the effect similar to the rational number system. It IS a feature like the natural number.

Give me an example that species 4 evolved into 4.1111 and then 4.1112 ... . Then 5 to 5.1111 ....

It did not, does not and will not happen.
I guess it does not even happen at the genetic level.

So you think there is a qualitative difference between one species and another? A "step" rather than a continuity?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you think there is a qualitative difference between one species and another? A "step" rather than a continuity?

They like to think it's analog (allele frequency), but in reality, it's digital (connect the dots).

That's why they can't pass my daisy chain challenge.

 

[essentialsaltes]

True/False ?

False.

Evolution is a history
Discovered by men and women
That explains the evidence we see around us in the world

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is a history

No, it isn't.

There you guys go again, ignoring your own science to force-fit your beliefs on to a gullible public.

Do you know what the dividing line between "prehistoric" and "historic" is?

 

[durangodawood]

If you've enjoyed that, you should like this. A little ditty by Billy Preston which is all of the argument one needs to dispel the myth of macro evolution as an explanation for the origin of life (or anything else in the material universe). Hit it, Billy!

"Nothing from Nothing".

Really. Nothing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We do not see the effect similar to the rational number system. It IS a feature like the natural number.

Give me an example that species 4 evolved into 4.1111 and then 4.1112 ... . Then 5 to 5.1111 ....

It did not, does not and will not happen.
I guess it does not even happen at the genetic level.

Wrong again. But until you own up to your past errors there is hardly any point in going over this one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it isn't.

Of course it is. That fact has been amply demonstrated time after time.

There you guys go again, ignoring your own science to force-fit your beliefs on to a gullible public.

What science did he ignore? And please, when you are far more gullible than most you should not accuse the public of being gullible.

Do you know what the dividing line between "prehistoric" and "historic" is?

What does this no-sequitur have to do with the discussion?