MY Darwin Challenge.

[Frank Robert]

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

Most Christians would agree that 'the theory of evolution has some "outside help." The disagreement pertains to where/when did the outside help begin with most denominations affirming evolution though God's natural laws to do the grunt work of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

... I'm sorry, what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Most Christians would agree that 'the theory of evolution has some "outside help." The disagreement pertains to where/when did the outside help begin ...

In the Garden of Eden circa 4003 BC.

 

[Frank Robert]

Satan.

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

An excellent example of regurgitating creationist nonsense over something the you fail to understand and refuse to learn about.

"The assertion of Darwin, which has crept into the title of his work, is, that favoured races are preserved, while all his facts go only to substantiate the assertion that favoured individuals have a better chance in the struggle for life than others.68

Darwin did not show that these favoured individuals of a specific race diverged ‘from their specific type; and neither [he] nor anybody else has furnished a single fact to show that they go on diverging’.69​

 

[Frank Robert]

In the Garden of Eden circa 4003 BC.

You are entitled to your beliefs. However you should recognize that it is unfortunate when religious beliefs lead so many people astray.

 

[AV1611VET]

An excellent example of regurgitating creationist nonsense over something the you fail to understand and refuse to learn about.

Really?

Then what's this post I made in 2016?

You don't think I know that?

By "races," he means "species."

Care to reassess your thinking?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Care to reassess your thinking?

That you can't keep your story straight.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are entitled to your beliefs. However you should recognize that it is unfortunate when religious beliefs lead so many people astray.

Which one leads you astray, agnostic?

 

[AV1611VET]

That you can't keep your story straight.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Keeps you from having to admit you're wrong.

 

[Frank Robert]

Really?

Then what's this post I made in 2016?
Care to reassess your thinking?

You did not address the quotations that illuminate Darwin's meaning of 'favored races'.

 

[AV1611VET]

You did not address the quotations that illuminate Darwin's meaning of 'favored races'.

And that's what's confusing you?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you?

Keeps you from having to admit you're wrong.

If you know that in Darwin's time, race meant species, invariably meaning that Darwin was talking about animals, why specifically use the subtitle, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and try and link it to Mein Kampf and Nazism?
And don't say that you don't get it because you are old enough to know exactly what Nazism is about and stood for. Ignorance is no excuse on this matter.

 

[Frank Robert]

Which one leads you astray, agnostic?

Agnosticism merely implies that the nature of deities can not be known. If there were more agnostics and atheists it is likely that the US and other developed nations would not be so immersed in a pandemic of hate and anger.

 

[Frank Robert]

And that's what's confusing you?

What confuses many here is you keep moving the goal posts distract from away from your claims.

 

[Frank Robert]

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

It is amazing that so many people will not follow there own good advice.

When I don't understand something about evolution that may concern me, I go to where I can interact with experts. My favorite place is Peaceful Science when I can interact with scientists from many different fields as well as theologians. I also like Panda's Thumb and Sandwalk.

 

[ruthiesea]

Of course the theory of evolution remains a valid scientific theory, has never been invalidated, and the evidence found since Darwin supports it.

 

[ruthiesea]

Most Christians worldwide, as represented by statements from their governing bodies are in fact accepting of biological evolution as being fully compatible with their faith​

As it is with my faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course the theory of evolution remains a valid scientific theory,

As do about nine different theories as to how we got our moon.

May I ask what an "invalid scientific theory" looks like?

 

[Mountainmike]

It is amazing that so many people will not follow there own good advice.

When I don't understand something about evolution that may concern me, I go to where I can interact with experts. My favorite place is Peaceful Science when I can interact with scientists from many different fields as well as theologians. I also like Panda's Thumb and Sandwalk.

Colncluded from ZERO knowledge about me!
Isn’t it fascinating - the atheists & agnostics always presume ignorance of others.

Meanwhile I am a scientist and I have been studying abiogenesis for FIFTY YEARS since the first article I saw in new scientist regarding protocell design and specifically Gantis book who kicked most of this off.

You may well like backwater websites. I don’t.

I prefer to study from the horses mouths. The status is much as I said it was.
Peoples beliefs in abiogenesis are running way ahead of the science and evidence.

I repeat. There is no specific structure for the first assumed living cell using the definitions of Harvard and NASA. There is no evidence a simpler cell existed than our current minimum cell existed which is frighteningly complex , and nobody knows when , where or how it happened. ( WHETHER it happened is pure faith of those who believe it ) It does not repeat and cannot be repeated.
So ALL of the science on abiogenesis Is conjecture about how disparate parts of an assumed process might have happened. No evidence they ever did.

as a scientist …
I might even believe it happened if and when there is a first cell design specified and a pathway to it defined from only non living ingredients and a process from it to our present cell. Then it becomes a hypothesis. Till then the status is a patchwork of conjecture.

On the other hand I have forensic evidence of living tissue created in multiple so called Eucharistic miracles. Multiple pathologists, incidents and continents. I know they were recently live because of leukocytes.
That’s already a lot more evidence than there is for abiogenesis from random chance chemistry, which is pure supposition.

The score based On actual scientific evidence of living cells created and studied.
Creation 5. Abiogenesis 0

Not a very good score is it for faith based evolutionists?

 

[Mountainmike]

Of course the theory of evolution remains a valid scientific theory, has never been invalidated, and the evidence found since Darwin supports it.

Read my previous posts. Darwin set his own criterion for invalidation. Arguably it has been triggered by forensic evidence.