Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

Abandon my faith and my inability (at this particular time) to understand God's Word, and the promises and assurance the Holy Spirit has given me, for your and like-minded individual's interpretation... No, I don't think so.

Why would you need to abandon your faith?

It seems like you're again setting up a dichotomy between findings in science and Christianity; where in order for one to be true, the other must be false.

 

[Job 33:6]

In awe of what, it's impossible. Its something called functional constraint due to deleterious effects. This is in addition to 60 de novo brain related genes appearing out of nowhere with no viable cause.why bring it up? It's called the burden of proof, and that's on Darwinians who do nothing but beg the question of proof on their hands and knees

Do you have research supporting this claim that functional constraint would prevent these 18 mutations?

 

[inquiring mind]

Why would you need to abandon your faith?

Where is the faith in your interpretation?

 

[DogmaHunter]

By allowing the Lord to guide me, and not leaning totally on my own understanding.

So... at no point, evidence is taken into the equation for consideration?

That align with the facts/evidence of reality as you, and like-minded individuals, see it... No, thank you.

So, you're fine believing things that are contradicted and/or not supported by reality at all?

Also, what are you doing in the science forum anyway, if facts and evidence are irrelevant to you, while they are everything in science?

There's always the possibility the interpretation of these facts is wrong. Do you not agree with that?

No because we are not talking about inferences, but about observations.
Facts are what they are.

The flood story predicts very specific things concerning geology and genetics. Things that should be present. They are not present. There's no "interpretation" going on there. X should be there and it's not there.

Abandon my faith and my inability (at this particular time) to understand God's Word, and the promises and assurance the Holy Spirit has given me, for your and like-minded individual's interpretation... No, I don't think so.

I said: regardless of agreeing with the scientific explanations of the facts. As in, JUST considering the facts. The facts, that do not fit within the framework of things YOU believe.

So, indeed... facts seem to be irrelevant to you. All you care about is believing your bible and upholding that belief.

So I should reason that you, and like-minded individuals, have determined what is nonsense, discovered all the actual evidence and reality, and interpreted it correctly... uh, yeah, right.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that if you have specific truth-claims, like the literal noah story, and you wish to determine wheter those claims are actually true or not, how else could you do it, if not by seeing if the evidence and facts of reality actually aligns with said story?

If it does, that doesn't mean the story is absolutely true. But at least you'll know that it's consistent with the evidence of reality.

If it does NOT, however.... then you know the story can't be true. Since the facts of reality show it to be false.

When a claim is held up against contradictory facts, the actual facts always win.

That's how you tell "true" from "false".

 

[Job 33:6]

Its staggering how much you guys don't learn about the life sciences while pontificating about them. Molecular mecanisms, actually single stranded rna, do any number of things as the cell is being built. From the 7th to the 17th week of the gestation period of the human fetus there is a regulatory gene known as HAR 1f, a crucial 118 nucleotide regulatory gene. It has allowed only 2 substitions in 400 million years then 2 million years ago it allows 18, only in humans. We will start with that since I don't jump though hoops for darwinians, but thanks for the convoluted rhetoric just the same.

I should also point out that human and chimpanzee common ancestry is closer to around 7 million years as opposed to 2 million

So it would be 18 mutations in something like 7 million years. So thats 2 or 3 mutations every 1 million years.

 

[pitabread]

Where is the faith in your interpretation?

I have my own philosophies that have nothing to do with Christianity. So I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'm asking you why you feel you'd have to abandon your faith. Especially given there are so many Christians who have no trouble reconciling their Christian faith with findings of modern science.

 

[inquiring mind]

So... at no point, evidence is taken into the equation for consideration?

Sure it is, but the Lord guides us toward the proper interpretation of evidence, and we should have faith in His Word until He does.

So, you're fine believing things that are contradicted and/or not supported by reality at all?

Contradictions of the Lord's Word supported by 'so-called' reality are not proven.

Also, what are you doing in the science forum anyway, if facts and evidence are irrelevant to you, while they are everything in science?

The last time I looked this is a Creation & Evolution thread.

 

[inquiring mind]

I have my own philosophies that have nothing to do with Christianity. So I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'm asking you why you feel you'd have to abandon your faith. Especially given there are so many Christians who have no trouble reconciling their Christian faith with findings of modern science.

Where did I give you the impression that I have discredited science completely?

 

[sfs]

The last time I looked this is a Creation & Evolution thread.

In a "Physical and Life Sciences" subforum.

 

[inquiring mind]

In a "Physical and Life Sciences" subforum.

Maybe you should suggest they change it to an 'Evolution only' subforum then?

 

[sfs]

Maybe you should suggest they change it to an 'Evolution only' subforum then?

Why? It's here for discussion of creation and evolution, but the context of that discussion is science. If you just want to talk theology, there's an "Origins theology" forum (which of course often strays into science as well.) The context of this particular thread, in fact, is entirely about the science -- the supposed scientific flaws in evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Where did I give you the impression that I have discredited science completely?

I didn't say you did. I'm specifically referring to the areas of science (e.g biological evolution and common ancestry of life) that appear to believe contradicts your faith.

Why would accepting those aspects of science cause you to abandon your faith?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure it is, but the Lord guides us toward the proper interpretation of evidence, and we should have faith in His Word until He does.


Contradictions of the Lord's Word supported by 'so-called' reality are not proven.


The last time I looked this is a Creation & Evolution thread.

In other words, science, evidence and facts are completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what you WANT to believe, and whatever the facts are - you'll find a way to "force-fit" them into your a priori religious faith.

 

[inquiring mind]

I didn't say you did. I'm specifically referring to the areas of science (e.g biological evolution and common ancestry of life) that appear to believe contradicts your faith.

Why would accepting those aspects of science cause you to abandon your faith?

Apparently discussing faith offends some here, so I'll be brief and just say (with one arm tied behind me) that I have no problem with with biological evolution, in the micro sense, no changing from one kind to another though, and so that omits common ancestry because it doesn't align with Genesis. Genesis doesn't appear to leave wiggle room for changing from one kind to another, so how could I abandon a part of God's Word and not abandon a part my faith.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apparently discussing faith offends some here

Faith is not a proper foundation for arguments in a science context.

, so I'll be brief and just say (with one arm tied behind me) that I have no problem with with biological evolution, in the micro sense, no changing from one kind to another though, and so that omits common ancestry because it doesn't align with Genesis.

So, again... you dissmiss the evidence of reality in favour of believing a story that doesn't align with said reality. Because you know, the science and evidence of "micro", is the exact same science and evidence as "macro".

In fact, it terms of the process of biological evolution, there's no such thing as "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". There's just the process of evolution which constantly acts upon whatever is alive at that moment.

Meanwhile, there isn't a single iota of evidence in support of your story. In fact, every testable prediction it makes, fails miserably. So the evidence we have, even contradicts your story.

This is what (fundamentalist) "faith" does to people. Willingly dissmiss reality in favour of believing a story that even contradicts reality.

Genesis doesn't appear to leave wiggle room for changing from one kind to another

That's just a story. A story of which the accuracy must be established and not taken at face value. You establish it's accuracy by testing it against the evidence of reality. If the evidence of reality disagrees, then it's not reality that is incorrect......

, so how could I abandon a part of God's Word and not abandon a part my faith.

Not a question I can answer as an atheist. But you should have no problem finding a christian that accepts 21st century biology that you can ask that question. They are, after all, the majority.

 

[inquiring mind]

Faith is not a proper foundation for arguments in a science context.

You keep saying that... in a discussion sub-forum that half the title pertains to. Now that's stacking the deck if I ever saw it.

So, again... you dissmiss the evidence of reality in favour of believing a story that doesn't align with said reality. Because you know, the science and evidence of "micro", is the exact same science and evidence as "macro".

Wrong! There is no proof of that. Remember the brick wall.

This is what (fundamentalist) "faith" does to people. Willingly dissmiss reality in favour of believing a story that even contradicts reality.

So you say... as you 'connect the dots' to make your reality.

That's just a story. A story of which the accuracy must be established and not taken at face value. You establish it's accuracy by testing it against the evidence of reality. If the evidence of reality disagrees, then it's not reality that is incorrect......

Jesus didn't dispute that 'story'... even as an atheist, do you think He didn't know what reality is?

Not a question I can answer as an atheist. But you should have no problem finding a christian that accepts 21st century biology that you can ask that question. They are, after all, the majority.

If that is really true, then they can defend their position by answering that question themselves... and you're right, I don't think many would welcome you describing what they do and don't believe.

 

[pitabread]

Genesis doesn't appear to leave wiggle room for changing from one kind to another, so how could I abandon a part of God's Word and not abandon a part my faith.

Do you believe that if common ancestry is true that that makes Genesis false? IOW, does Genesis being true depend on common ancestry being false?

 

[pitabread]

Wrong! There is no proof of that. Remember the brick wall.

There's no brick wall. That's the problem.

 

[inquiring mind]

Do you believe that if common ancestry is true that that makes Genesis false? IOW, does Genesis being true depend on common ancestry being false?

God's Word doesn't depend on man's hypotheticals.

 

[inquiring mind]

There's no brick wall. That's the problem.

You wished!