MY Darwin Challenge.

[Astrid]

The appeal of Darwin was that he gave people an excuse not to believe in God, and since there is no God (to them), then they could do whatever they wanted without feelings of guilt.

Is it Christian virtue that leads you to make up
something so mean spirited about people youve never
seen and know nothing about?

 

[DaisyDay]

Scientists would have to find a new father.

I thought Galileo was the father of science. Darwin never was considered any such thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought Galileo was the father of science. Darwin never was considered any such thing.

Cute.

Science has more fathers than a Promise Keepers convention.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it Christian virtue that leads you to make up
something so mean spirited about people youve never
seen and know nothing about?

LOL

Just mention the Lady Hope Story, and watch those who "have never seen and know nothing about" come out of the woodwork and tell us how wrong we are.

 

[sjastro]

After all, their haste to do things is what gave us a generation of thalidomide children, isn't it?

Its hilarious how this gem is pulled out on a regular basis but this man came up with a development where Thalidomide pales by comparison and caused 1.2 million premature deaths a year, lowered the IQ of countless children and probably drove many to violence.
We are still suffering the consequences today.

​

This man credited his development “In part to luck and religion as well as to the application of science”.
So who was this man and what did he develop that led to widespread misery for the human race?
Here is a hint where does the origin of the word plumbing come from and this material was once used to improve performance of a well known commodity?

 

[AV1611VET]

So who was this man and what did he develop that led to widespread misery for the human race?

Agent Orange?

 

[Frank Robert]

Third because Darwin put in his own test to falsify his theory. “ if anyone can show an organism developed from other than small change, my theory is false. “

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. Creationists can not provide any evidence, as in zero, that small changes, i.e. micro evolution suddenly stops before specification.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.
​

Creationists need to either stop spreading nonsense or come up with their own testable hypotheses that can be supported by evidence and make predictions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.

Only on paper, chief -- only on paper.

Why do evolutionists consistently use the term NEW SPECIES, and not NEW GENUS?

Could it be because God said they would only multiply after their own KIND (genus)?

 

[sjastro]

Agent Orange?

Tetraethyllead (commonly styled tetraethyl lead), abbreviated TEL, is an organolead compound with the formula Pb(C2H5)4. It is a fuel additive, first being mixed with gasoline beginning in the 1920s as a patented octane rating booster that allowed engine compression to be raised substantially. This in turn increased vehicle performance and fuel economy.[3][4] TEL was first synthesised by German chemist Carl Jacob Löwig in 1853. American chemical engineer Thomas Midgley, who was working for General Motors, was the first to discover its effectiveness as an antiknock agent in 1921, after spending several years attempting to find an additive that was both highly effective and inexpensive.

Concerns were later raised over the toxic effects of lead, especially on children.[5] On cars not designed to operate on leaded gasoline, lead and lead oxides coat the catalyst in catalytic converters, rendering them ineffective, and can sometimes foul spark plugs.[6] Starting in the 1970s, many countries began phasing out TEL in automotive fuel. In 2011 a study, backed by the United Nations, estimated that the removal of TEL had resulted in $2.4 trillion in annual benefits, and 1.2 million fewer premature deaths.[7]

 

[durangodawood]

Its hilarious how this gem is pulled out on a regular basis but this man came up with a development where Thalidomide pales by comparison and caused 1.2 million premature deaths a year, lowered the IQ of countless children and probably drove many to violence.
We are still suffering the consequences today.

​

This man credited his development “In part to luck and religion as well as to the application of science”.
So who was this man and what did he develop that led to widespread misery for the human race?
Here is a hint where does the origin of the word plumbing come from and this material was once used to improve performance of a well known commodity?

I got it in sentence one!

(And I was alive during the pre-eminence of his invention. Who knows how smart Id a been if I was born later!).

 

[Mountainmike]

There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. Creationists can not provide any evidence, as in zero, that small changes, i.e. micro evolution suddenly stops before specification.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Hundreds of studies verify the facts of evolution, at both the microevolutionary and macroevolutionary scale—from the origin of new traits and new species to the underpinnings of the complexity we see in life and the statistical probability of such complexity arising.
​

Creationists need to either stop spreading nonsense or come up with their own testable hypotheses that can be supported by evidence and make predictions.

If you have followed my posting on evolution you will know that I agree within the context of what is proven. But evolution is not a single theory , it is a hotch potch of theories , hypotheses , and in places pure supposition.

I also have reservations on much of the wishful thinking on “climbing mount improbable “ ( or the various alternative ways of saying it. ) That’s because I have spent a lot of time in mathematical optimisation using hill climbing methods, so I can state much of what is said is evolutionist nonsense!

Nowhere is that supposition in absence of evidence more so than it is for abiogenesis which fails to qualify even as a valid hypothesis, since there is no structure proposed for the living cell ( within the definition of nasa and Harvard ) , nobody can say when , where or how it happened, or why it stopped happening. so no experiment is possible. The minimum known cell is incredibly complex as a pathway chart shows. Orders More complex than any man made chemical factory. So it did not happen by accident. Yet no specific structure for a first simpler cell is even conjectured , or a specific pathway to it from non life or from it. It is also irreducibly complex. Self evolving and reproducing ( aka life) has a minimum complexity. There is A blank of evidence.

So I go with the EVIDENCE not wishful thinking. I might even believe abiogenesus if ever there is a process defined and evidence it happened, but there is only a smoke screen at present, ( and some interesting plausibility ideas for parts of a process but that is all they are)


Even high priest Dawkins of the atheist faith says he has “no idea how life started” Then he follows with the cognitive dissonance of saying how it must have been! Atheists maybe should listen to their priests! So spare me the cookie cutter faith statement you quote.

But following evidence is also why I go with the forensic evidence of so called Eucharistic miracles which one of the many ( in this case non religious) pathologists who analysed them, stated was
“ compelling evidence of creation of heart tissue “
Maybe you should try following evidence some time!
It also is evidence that Darwin’s theory fails by the test he himself set, which is why I raise it here.

 

[driewerf]

I have to assume that, in the academic arena, he is considered more right than wrong, since he's being so venerated.

But please understand that, where he is wrong, I have no choice but to let it matter to me.

Especially when it comes time to vote on school levies.

Well, AV1611VET, it is time to grow up. Facts don’t care about your feelings. And if your feelings get hurt because different sciences find things you don’t like, then too bad for you but you’ll have to accept them.
The purpose of the sciences is not to contradict the Quran. It is to describe the Universe around us based on empirically gathered data. If this data contradicts the Quran, then too bad for the Quran. Just like the purpose of a truck is not kill rabbits but to move goods from point A to point B. The rabbit is just unintended roadkill. And the truck wont stop for every rabbit. The driver might not even be aware he just killed a rabbit. The purpose of science is to describe and explain the world. And the “holy books” like the Quran (or rather, their literal, fundamentalist interpretation) are just unintended roadkill.

 

[driewerf]

If Darwin said ANYTHING that contradicts the Bible, Darwin is wrong.

Nope. The only arbiter in evaluating a scientific theory is evidence. Empirical evidence. Scientific theories are science's playground, and there counts science's rules.
No argument from authority. No appeal to emotions or traditions or sacred texts. Empirical evidence.
Creationists (all flavours: Young Earth, Embedded Age, GAP, what not) rejcet these rules, and are hence on a fundamental level anti science, as described in this assay:
The tip of the ice berg

 

[driewerf]

So any small child that says God created the earth is placing himself in the position of knowing more than any physicist, geologist, biologist etc on earth?

A child wouldn’t know better. It would simply parrot what adults have told him - so its the adult who places himself in an undeserved position of authority. But this/these adult(s), who at least understand(s) that it needs years of study at a college or university to master a science -or any other academic subject for that matter - has no excuse. An adult has at least seen a few textbooks on the shelves of a bookshop. Knows the existence of universities and research institutes. Might have seen a documentary or two with labs and sophisticated lab equipment in the background. An adult might have had a chemistry lesson or two in high school, and struggled with calculus, to understand that these subjects require an effort to master.
An adult who maintains that the scientists are wrong, yet doesn’t know anything about the subject displays an anti science, anti education, anti knowledge attitude. And if that adult needs to take cover behind a child, then that speaks volumes of his moral standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope. The only arbiter in evaluating a scientific theory is evidence. Empirical evidence.

Evidence can be manipulated.

 

[Frank Robert]

Only on paper, chief -- only on paper.

Are you now claiming that the consilience evidence gathered from multiple scientific fields that affirms evolution is ONLY ON PAPER. Perhaps you can visit a museum with a large evolution section, put on your thinking cap and contemplate your 'only on paper' claim.

Why do evolutionists consistently use the term NEW SPECIES, and not NEW GENUS?

Could it be because God said they would only multiply after their own KIND (genus)?

I don't know where you get your information about evolution but I do know it is not from reliable or trusted sources. See:
A remarkable new genus and species of Nemourinae ... - PLOS

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

the heart tissue forensic evidence in so called Eucharistic miracles , And the forensics of the bleeding statue of Cochabamba triggers that test. Complex Human tissue that didn’t come from progressive change. It wa far too rapid for that. And it was progressive change , so not a substitution.

This, above all things, has no relation at all to anything Darwin said or is said to have said.

 

[Frank Robert]

If you have followed my posting on evolution you will know that I agree within the context of what is proven. But evolution is not a single theory , it is a hotch potch of theories , hypotheses , and in places pure supposition.

The ToE is a consilience of multiple unrelated scientific fields. You can call those fields a 'hodgepodge' but you would be wrong just as wrong as you are about scientific evidence being 'pure' supposition.

 

[driewerf]

Evidence can be manipulated.

Fraud will always come about - and is a career killer. It's not making a career more difficult, it's a career killer.
The cases of fraud are rare because of this self cleansing effect.
If you want to suggest that all the data supporting the Theory of Evolution is manipulated or fraudulent, you'll have a hell of job to prove itor -in your case - to even understand it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to suggest that all the data supporting the Theory of Evolution is manipulated or fraudulent, you'll have a hell of job to prove it or -in your case - to even understand it.

Interesting word choice.

Let's just say: the theory of evolution has some "outside help."