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.
Briefly stated, this ancient dogma is the "alchemical" view of nature.... a thoroughly mystical belief that nature itself has the power to transform itself from an initial primitive state into all the diverse physical forms we see today.
Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own. 80 yrs of experiments proven it. What does it state beyond all the jargon How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment .The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding at a accelerated rate.So where is that energy coming from after that initial explosion .A Catholic priest came up with the theory to try to explain the church doctrine that the Earth was created in 6 days it has no scientific basis .Put educational institutions keeping feeding to kids to deny how creation really works.
It is not embarrassing that people were thinking about the evidence they saw in the world around them before someone came up with a robust explanation of it. Nobody is quite sure what your obsession with poetry is about. Erasmus Darwin wrote several scientific works, including Zoonomia, in which he put forth early ideas of evolution and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. It is by no means embarrassing that scientific thinkers were circling in on the correct explanation of the evidence around them.
What’s an anti-God theory?
Interesting you say that evolution is an "anti-god theory", when most theists accept the theory.
Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own.
How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment
The Big Bang theory is also been proven wrong cause scientists have discovered much to there surprise the universe is expanding at a accelerated rate.
A Catholic priest came up with the theory to try to explain the church doctrine that the Earth was created in 6 days it has no scientific basis
Put educational institutions keeping feeding to kids to deny how creation really works.
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned.
The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations
The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.
you are not even allowed to propose a LIMIT on the natural explanation, i.e. nature's supposed creative powers to explain the origin of things.
Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.
Right, and he knew the solar system "evolved" via magic nature as well. Writing about how older planets gave birth to new ones, etc.
Just disinterested science, no ideological agenda at all.
The honest formulation is, that science doesn't accept undemonstrable, undetectable, unsupportable agents as explanations of ANYTHING.
The problem with creationists is not that they "question" naturalistic explanations. The problem rather is that they insist on including an agent that they can't demonstrate to be real. They insist on including an agent which, actually by definition, has NO detectable manifestation, NO testability, NO observations, NO testable predictions, NO falsifiability,....
It's just about belief and nothing else.
Looking for a natural explanation makes sense, because natural phenomena (like physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry) demonstrably exist. If you wish to propose a non-natural explanation, then you're going to have to provide a wee bit more besides some bronze age religious text (that even theists among themselves can't even agree on what it really is saying)!
Because supernatural claims can't be tested, verified, observed, demonstrated,... by definition.
The second you can demonstrate that supernatural forces actually exist in the real world, and not just in your head / beliefs, is the second that scientists will happily include them in their models if need be.
If you wish to suggest a limit, then again: demonstrate this limit.
If he ever wrote such a thing in seriousness, it has rightly been discarded on the rubbish heap of bad ideas. Like all the other hypotheses that are unsupported by evidence. Even if we suppose that this is some symptom of 'ideology', clearly ideology and dogma do not survive in science when confronted with facts and evidence, contrary to your thesis.
lol, I love it when evolutionists pretend to be eager for a challenge when an opposing viewpoint isn't even allowed to be discussed.
Any time the question arises "Hey maybe blind natural processes couldn't have accounted for this...?" it's an immediate, all-hands-on-deck, hand-waving freak-out
.....but while the specific hypotheses and theories can always be modified or discarded, you are never allowed to question the central dogma it is based on, (i.e. Nature did it.) If the evidence leads away from nature as a cause, you simply cannot follow it or even admit the evidence
ToE, much like your abysmal misunderstanding of science history, is a fact.In 1803, before Charles Darwin was even born, his grandfather Erasmus Darwin published a lengthy poem celebrating the beauty of the evolutionary history of all life on earth...
Here's a small excerpt from "The Temple of Nature":
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Darwin/temple1.html
"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nursed in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing."
Hmmmm... I thought Evolution was all about objective science and reason prevailing over faith-based dogmas?
How did these guys already 'know' Evolution was true *before* the advent of scientific theories supposedly demonstrating it? A feeling, a hunch, an educated guess?
Actually the Darwins and other students of the Enlightenment were simply resurrecting an ancient dogma.
Briefly stated, this ancient dogma is the "alchemical" view of nature.... a thoroughly mystical belief that nature itself has the power to transform itself from an initial primitive state into all the diverse physical forms we see today.
"Proposals that one type of animal, even humans, could descend from other types of animals, are known to go back to the first pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. Anaximander of Miletus (c. 610 – 546 BC) proposed that the first animals lived in water, during a wet phase of the Earth's past, and that the first land-dwelling ancestors of mankind must have been born in water..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought#Antiquity
Evolution is a hidden dogma, a mystical, quasi-religious creation narrative that was held to faithfully by the very progenitors of our modern scientific institutions. The 'learned societies' of the 17th-19th centuries, the students of the Enlightenment that propelled the ancient "nature as creator" dogma into the modern age. And for all the scientific progress these societies and institutions have made, the essential idea of Evolution (Nature as creator) was never and will never be up for debate within them.
The Evolutionary creation story - the unfolding of all of the diversity of nature by the intrinsic power of nature itself - will simply be revised and refined as knowledge increases. But that fundamental belief in Evolution is not allowed tobe questioned. It would be like Christian institutions questioning whether the Bible is inspired by God. The very question negates the assumption the institution is built on.
In some cases, we'll actually see this dogma freely admitted. Take modern "Origin of Life" (abiogenesis) studies for example. Within our scientific institutions, it is simply taken for granted that IT HAPPENED. "Nature created life, we just need to figure out how.". Only the HOW is to be questioned, but never IF it happened. Here we have this ancient dogma exposed for all to see. And we see that the scientific institutions are not even equipped to question that central dogma that nature is the creator of all things.
It's not hard to see... this shouldn't even be controversial if we're being honest with ourselves... It's just a hard pill to swallow for people who were sold flimsy "science vs. religion" mythology all their lives by these same authorities.
No, it was a polite request for you to put up or shut up. Sadly, you will do neither.
People have been providing legitimate arguments for decades. But the evolutionists can't handle a debate so they rule any question of nature-creator's powers as an "anti-science" conspiracy.
For example, this is James Tour, one of the top chemists in academia, testifying that he does not see a pathway for a natural origin of life.
"Tour has over 650 research publications and over 120 patents, with an H-index = 133 and i10 index = 583 with total citations over 84,000 (Google Scholar). He was inducted into the National Academy of Inventors in 2015.Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014; listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014; and recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014; and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014. He was named Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013."
Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman ("but, but, he's not talking about ToE!!!!") ... and really let what he's saying sink in.
Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story (i.e. that stardust can turn itself into people).... They simply do not see evidence that nature has the mystical organizing powers that you want it to have.
To evolutionists: please, do not pretend a challenge isn't firmly on the table. It's been there for a long time and you're unable to deal with it.
The solution? Ban any mention of IT (a potential limit to your almighty nature-creator) from the discourse.
How embarassing is it that your camp still can't handle a debate? You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God, and laughably continue the charade that you're champions of science and empiricism, following the evidence wherever it leads.
I wonder how history will look back on the dogmatic reign of your philosophy-cult?
Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman
Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story
To evolutionists: please, do not pretend a challenge isn't firmly on the table. It's been there for a long time and you're unable to deal with it.
The solution? Ban any mention of IT
You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God
The solution? Ban any mention of IT (a potential limit to your almighty nature-creator) from the discourse.
How embarassing is it that your camp still can't handle a debate? You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God, and laughably continue the charade that you're champions of science and empiricism, following the evidence wherever it leads.
On the table? For science, the appropriate 'table' on which to throw your challenge is in the scientific literature. Yet most of the doubters make their cases primarily in the popular media (or even YouTube!).
But when they do make their arguments in a scientific forum, as Behe and Snoke did with their article in Protein Science, they get roundly spanked by the evidence.
The astronomically abysmal chances of nature organizing life from non-life has been known or 'on the table' for quite awhile.
lol, the second a Darwin-skeptic is responded to at all, then he's been "spanked",
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?