• 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.

Evolution is an ancient Creation dogma

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
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.

That would explain the crickets chirping every time I ask for
scientific reasons for life to exist or evolution to be active.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

The heisenberg principal says that time and unpredictability
are tied in a inverse formula such that most of the time
we can be sure of an event but inversely we can't be confident
for short periods of time.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

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.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
What’s an anti-God theory?

My guess is, any scientific theory that
1. doesn't include supernatural assertions
and
2. contradicts the fundamentalist religious faith-based beliefs of the religion that the person in question happens to be brought up in, more then likely by geographic accident.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Interesting you say that evolution is an "anti-god theory", when most theists accept the theory.

But all those theists aren't true scottsmen... err, I mean true theists. They obviously follow the wrong religion or denomination. ONLY Aman's fundamentalist space-adam interpretation that nobody else believes is the true and correct religion, didn't you know?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Quantum physics proves nothing just evolves just on it own.

lol?

How a scientist thinks can control the very atoms in a experiment

Nukes explode and nuclear power stations delivery electricity.
Sounds pretty controlled to me...

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.

lol!
Funny how you think that one of the phenomena that is actually addressed by big bang theory, is actually the phenomena that "proves it wrong".

Thank goodness we have you, random internet fundamentalist, to inform us all that all the expert physicists and cosmologists in the world, are incorrect.

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

Georges LeMaitre is turning in his grave when you say things like that.
The Pope at the time tried to use LeMaitre's hypothesis to try and support the biblical idea of creation. When LeMaitre heared about that, he wrote the Pope a letter, kindly asking him to please stop abusing his scientific work to try and make a religious point.


Put educational institutions keeping feeding to kids to deny how creation really works.

Right, right.... those HORRIBLE educational institutions right? Teching them kids science... who DARE they?????????????

 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Origin of Life studies have struggled to produce convincing naturalistic explanations, , yet at no time has a natural cause been allowed to be questioned.

That is extremely dishonest formulation.

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)!

The more honest scientists will freely state that they can only consider natural operations

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.

Until then, they might just as well include undetectable pink graviton fairies in the theory of gravity. It will have the exact same merrit: none.

The same goes for the origin of all other things at all different stages of the evolution creation story.

No, we actually have mountains of evidence of the natural process of biological evolution.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.

If you wish to suggest a limit, then again: demonstrate this limit.

You don't seem to understand that whenever you make such truth claims or assertions, in science you are actually required to SUPPORT them with EVIDENCE.

Your a priori religious beliefs, aren't evidence.

Again, it's simply outside of the scientific establishment's philosophical parameters. There's no shame in admitting your own dogmatic boundaries.

It's not dogmatic. It's intellectually honest. You can't test that which is defined as being untestable.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,847
44,958
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
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.

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.

Although scientists may be aware of certain prescientific hypotheses about nature, forging a scientific theory requires robust evidence for widespread acceptance.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

Ah, right on cue with that supernatural strawman.

You know perfectly well that we can explore potential *limits* of nature's creative powers without having to invoke any supernatural agents.

Yet the mere suggestion that nature may be unable to account for the origin of something (e.g. life) is forbidden within "scientific" institutions because of the reigning nature-creator dogma.
 
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If you wish to suggest a limit, then again: demonstrate this limit.

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 by your camp about those 'anti-science creationists' trying to sneak God's foot in the door.

Your camp is terrified of an open discourse about the potential limits of nature. It's simply ruled out as a possibility from the beginning, and that's that. The grand Nature-Creator orginated everything and now we just have to find out how. That is your creation story dogma.
 
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private

And this highlights an important distinction. Yes, the specific routes the nature-creator took to originate things is always up for debate (and this is how evolutionists pretend to have a scientific openness to all evidence)

.....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 exists.

So there may have been hypotheses about how the solar system evolved that have been thoroughly discarded, but what you can not question under any circumstances is whether the solar system evolved at all. "It did. And we just have to figure out how."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,847
44,958
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)

No, it was a polite request for you to put up or shut up. Sadly, you will do neither.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Question whatever ‘Dogma’ you like.

The problem lies in the quality of your questions, as we’ve seen so far they are spurious to say the least.

You certainly haven’t presented any evidence of note.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
ToE, much like your abysmal misunderstanding of science history, is a fact.
 
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

You are conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Are you presenting an argument against abiogenesis or evolution?


I can't watch your video, I have no sound on my PC. Would you care to present the main thrust of the argument.
 
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,847
44,958
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Now try and resist the desperate knee-jerk reaction to throw yourself upon a strawman

Speaking of strawmen, it would be helpful if you did not try to make up imaginary responses.

Let it be perfectly clear that there are highly qualified scientists in relevant fields that have real problems with the evolutionary creation story

No one has claimed otherwise.

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.

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 solution? Ban any mention of IT

Who's banning what, now?

You cannot allow any questioning of your sacrosanct nature-God

This is just loony.
 
Upvote 0

Jimmy D

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2014
5,147
5,995
✟277,099.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


He writes in a post that cites a scientist questioning our "sacrosant nature-God".

LOL.

You guys crack me up.
 
Reactions: tyke
Upvote 0

lifepsyop

Regular Member
Jan 23, 2014
2,438
761
✟94,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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!).

The astronomically abysmal chances of nature organizing life from non-life has been known or 'on the table' for quite awhile. Why are you still calling to have the elephant in the room drawn out for you?

Why do modern scientific institutions still pretend the evidence isn't leading away from a natural cause? Maybe it's impossible to follow that evidence beyond a certain point, but you could at least be honest enough to admit it's there instead of trying to deceive the public that nature is magical and can do anything.

Scientifically speaking, abiogenesis appears, at best, extremely unlikely. But within modern scientific institutions, the possibility that nature can't explain the origin of something is anathema. Your evolutionary creation story is "baked in", before any consideration of the evidence begins. The saddest part is you just can't admit it.

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.

lol, the second a Darwin-skeptic is responded to at all, then he's been "spanked", I bet most evolutionists wouldn't even bother to read the exchange ... yet it looks like Behe addressed the criticism's in a follow-up.... and Behe is an evolutionist himself. What's so funny is that he is painted as such a radical for simply deviating from the cult of neo-Darwinism.

That's an interesting subject in itself. Many top-level evolutionary biologists are walking away from neo-Darwinism. But it's funny that students are still being taught what is essentially 19th century biology.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,847
44,958
Los Angeles Area
✟1,001,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
The astronomically abysmal chances of nature organizing life from non-life has been known or 'on the table' for quite awhile.

Lucky for us the universe is astronomically large.

lol, the second a Darwin-skeptic is responded to at all, then he's been "spanked",

I guess you missed the part that said "Numerous scientists have debunked the work".
 
Upvote 0