MY Darwin Challenge.

[Shemjaza]

There are several disconnected issues .

First what Darwin said. I believe his comment was limited to saying what he considered our closest relatives such as chimpanzees were from Africa. He had no formal biological pathway.

It's a conclusion from limited evidence... it turned out to be right, but if it was all we ever had it wouldn't have been particularly convincing.

As a counter to that kind of evidence opossums are closer related to a whole bunch of Australian animals than they are to their fellow Americans.

Second , it matters because you presume evolution from Darwin.
Clearly others built on that foundation. But if the foundation is rotten so is the building on it.

The issue is that Darwin's publications represent foundational scientific ideas... not foundational evidence.

If every word he wrote had been lies deliberately to glorify Satan, it would be irrelevant to all the scientific evidence that defines all the modern research into biology.

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. “

His theory would be false as a universal truth certainly... that doesn't remove all the evidence for evolution, it would complicate the situation.

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. That is why they are so important. So Darwin is falsified by his own test. As is the origin of life now questionable.

Even if you accept the evidence for the miraculous creation of flesh and blood, then we have a specifically different and separate origin for organic matter... it doesn't explain the evidence for evolution, as I said, it merely complicates the situation.

The existence of arsonists doesn't disprove bush fires and the existence of mining explosives doesn't disprove earthquakes.

 

[driewerf]

Interesting word choice.

Thank you. I try to chose my words carefully, so that their meaning reflects as accurately as possible what I want to say. Which, to be frank, requires some effort since English is not my first language.

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

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. The ToE requires "outside help"? How can a theory need assistance? And, since it is a human construct – a simplified description of reality – what would that outside help be? And who would provide it? A non human? What non human intelligence could there be – intelligent enough to help formulating the ToE

 

[Astrid]

.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. The ToE requires "outside help"? How can a theory need assistance? And, since it is a human construct – a simplified description of reality – what would that outside help be? And who would provide it? A non human? What non human intelligence could there be – intelligent enough to help formulating the ToE

He means the theory of evolution was helped along by Satan.

 

[AV1611VET]

What non human intelligence could there be – intelligent enough to help formulating the ToE

Satan.

The same one who inspired The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and its sequel, My Struggles.

 

[Mountainmike]

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

Other than Darwin’s own test and criteria for disproving his theory may have been met? That’s one of the most important parts of his “ theory” since he chose to write it. His own Falsifiability criteria.

 

[driewerf]

I was too late.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Satan.

The same one who inspired The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and its sequel, My Struggles.

And we go right to connections to Nazism. 4 pages. Slow day for you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was too late.

He'd already admitted to it in post #26 anyway.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

It seems you need to study it more, it is as I described it

- The ToE is a hotch potch . It is not a single theory. For example, common descent is in essence Darwin’s theory, but there are many more parts needed to make it function, , various molecular biological mechanisms , then various theories of statistical propagation through populations ( which incidentally take a lot more generations than the evolution primer makes it sound. Then presumption of survival of fittest, then gaps of understanding in some of the bigger transitions and genetic matter leaps.

And I assure you as an expert at math modelling and optimisation that the presumption of hill climbing to reach the higher peaks is not nearly as clear cut as evolutionist wishful thinking sounds. I do not know where you live, but it is a safe bet that if you leave home using only an algorithm of reaching ever higher ground, you will get Stranded on a local foothill, you will never get anywhere near the biggest hill in your scountry let alone Everest! You have to go down as well as up. And make big enough leaps to cross rivers, without killing your self falling down cliffs, All of which have direct analogies in survival of fittest. It is nowhere near as simple as Dawkins suggests.

My characterisation of abiogenesis was spot on.

There is on the other hand FORENSIC evidence that Darwin’s criterion for falsification May have been met. I will wager you never heard of it before!

 

[Astrid]

Honestly, people in America.

 

[Mountainmike]

It's a conclusion from limited evidence... it turned out to be right, but if it was all we ever had it wouldn't have been particularly convincing.

As a counter to that kind of evidence opossums are closer related to a whole bunch of Australian animals than they are to their fellow Americans.



The issue is that Darwin's publications represent foundational scientific ideas... not foundational evidence.

If every word he wrote had been lies deliberately to glorify Satan, it would be irrelevant to all the scientific evidence that defines all the modern research into biology.



His theory would be false as a universal truth certainly... that doesn't remove all the evidence for evolution, it would complicate the situation.



Even if you accept the evidence for the miraculous creation of flesh and blood, then we have a specifically different and separate origin for organic matter... it doesn't explain the evidence for evolution, as I said, it merely complicates the situation.

The existence of arsonists doesn't disprove bush fires and the existence of mining explosives doesn't disprove earthquakes.

On the last point true. If creation occurs it could be at multiple stages.

Clearly adaptation also happens.

But it would also kill the presumption that abiogenesis MUST be a random chance chemical event.

 

[driewerf]

Honestly, people in America.

Yes?
Not that I am involved or concerned in the "People in America". I am just curious for your thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, people in America.

 

[AV1611VET]

And we go right to connections to Nazism.

To be honest, Nazism didn't even come to my mind.

I was thinking more along the lines of his Aryan Supremacy theory.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To be honest, Nazism didn't even come to my mind.

I was thinking more along the lines of his Aryan Supremacy theory.

Which is the key component for Nazism.

But also not at all what is written about in On The Origin of Species.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes?
Not that I am involved or concerned in the "People in America". I am just curious for your thought.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is the key component for Nazism.

If you say so.

But also not at all what is written about in On The Origin of Species.

I believe you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you say so.

Why are you saying that?

I believe you.

Why are you saying that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why are you saying that?

Why are you saying that?

Because I don't equate either writing with Nazism; and never have.

Not that I even know what Nazism is; which I don't.

If there's a connection, then I'm not familiar with it.