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.
Now let's argue the case on its merits.
Stove says that natural selection, which wipes out those incapable of surviving for whatever reason (like weakness, disease etc etc) should, if it was genuinely working, wipe out the females and the young.
You're showing your temporal chauvinism. What makes you think current science has the final word on the matter?
Why think current science should be exalted over final science, the end of inquiry?
The nice thing about not pretending that religious poetry from 5000 years ago is science is that we can totally ignore questions such as this when doing real science.I for one think that there is still room for inquiry. Furthermore, which research papers are you aware of that have disproved Genesis, and what interpretations have those so-called scientists disproved exactly, since there are many interpretations of Genesis? Did they actually go through all of the interpretations of Genesis? Did they consider the "coded" interpretation as well? I'm really sitting in my seat with anticipation for a link to this exhaustive refutation to Genesis!
Assertions prove nothing. I have (and so has David Stove) presented the facts governing the case.
I haven't read that one. But the natural selection one is monumental in its demonstration of the sheer stupidity of the idea (and he presents a large number of examples from the human species to prove it) that natural selection could allow anything to survive for more than one generation.
That is an incontrovertible fact, and does irreparable damage to evolution theory.
My thoughts on God creating the universe are fairly simple. When you are all powerful and can do whatever you want, you don't think about the how, you just do "it". You snap your fingers and voila, your will is done.
Think of when you get up to turn the TV on... Do you think about your heart beating, your lungs drawing in air, your kidney's processing waste, your liver filtering the blood???? No. Those things are part of you and not worthy of thought. Those processes just are. They are natural subsets of you.
I submit that the physical processes of the universe (gravity, energy, mass,time, etc) are like the unconscious processes of God. He no more thinks about these things than we think about our pancreas creating insulin or our hair growing.
When God wants something done, it just gets done. The entire order of the universe rearranges itself to do whatever God wills. Now enter science. Science merely seeks to explain "how" the universe works. Science is not anything God chooses, it's not like God has to decide whether to do something based on faith or something based on science. No. God just is, and God just does.
If God decided that all humans should have the ability to travel back and forth through time, then the entire structure of the universe and physical laws would change to enable this ability. Mathematics and physics would change and then we'd have an entirely new universe with new physical and mathematical laws that would facilitate time travel. In fact, in this universe the notion of linear time would be non-existent. And "science" would again have the same role, and its role would be explaining "how" the universe works.
Basically, my point is that any action God takes, science would back it up simply because anything god does would have a logical explanation behind it because God's actions automatically creates the logic to empower said action. It is the ultimate axiomatic circular reference (if that makes any sense).
You should read more about him. His take on Natural Selection and Darwinism starts out wrong, continues on the wrong course and ends nowhere.I haven't read that one. But the natural selection one is monumental in its demonstration of the sheer stupidity of the idea (and he presents a large number of examples from the human species to prove it) that natural selection could allow anything to survive for more than one generation.
That is an incontrovertible fact, and does irreparable damage to evolution theory.
That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable. Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.Actually, he did. He spent years collecting the evidence. In any case, it has been over 150 years since Darwin published his seminal work. Since then, multiple parallel lines of evidence have provided further support to evolution. The theory is so well established that it is considered foundational to contemporary biology.
This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.Please define "kind" and tell us what we should expect to see if a new "kind" of animal were to evolve.
Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.Those cases that you call "variations within a kind" are exemplary of evolution. The theory does not predict a crocoduck, which is what creationists seem to expect of evolution. I recommend watching Aron Ra's brilliant Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism series. Specifically, the 11th episode in the series, which focuses on macroevolution.
When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation. Its just a world view of trying to take the credit for Gods creation by some naturalistic self making process that takes God out of the picture.Until you define what you mean by "kind," this claim cannot be examined. If you mean that we haven't observed ducks hatching creatures that are half-duck half-crocodile, then you are right - no such observation has been made. But evolution doesn't predict such observations anyway, so the point is moot.
This renders monotheism unknowable, then, since you'd have to search everywhere to be sure that there's only one god. Anyone who claims to know anything about a god must be wrong, at least if you accept the unstated premise here that any claim to knowledge requires omniscience.
But luckily this reliance on 100% absolute airtight proof isn't what we mean by knowledge, so the whole thing is based on a false premise.
Why do people who are trying to promote their religious belief need to change the normal meanings of words to try and find spaces to slip their gods into reality?
What aspect of Darwin's observations was unreliable and in what way?That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable.
And he was right: the gaps were filled with new discoveries.Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.
No, that's not accurate. Darwin had evidence, which is why his work was taken seriously when it was eventually published.So there wasn't emphatic evidence for evolution them. It was based on assumption.
But it has been observed, steve.This is also shown by the fact that Dobransky the father of the modern synthesis of evolution pushed to allow the assumption that macro evolution was the same as micro evolution over a long period of time even though it had never been observed,tested and verified.
You see, this is precisely why I keep urging you to pursue a free online course in evolutionary biology. This paragraph suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.
The only reason they are called species with evolution is because the different groups of bats have been isolated from each other and cannot mate any more to produce fertile offspring's. But those differences dont mean that the bat is going to continue to become different to the point that it becomes a lizard or whatever it becomes.
What would that look like? If you are expecting a crocoduck, or something of that nature, then you have not understood evolution properly. That appears to be the case here.Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.
Evolution is descent with modification. There is no point in continuing until you grasp this definition.When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation.
You don't appear to understand the fundamentals of evolution, so I don't think you are in a position to comment on the credibility of the theory.All these things were seen by evolution as minor side issues of the theory. But now they are seen as causes of how creatures can change and develop. There are too many contradictions and in-congruences with the story that evolution has made. Now we are finding out the truth through new discoveries. Like I said evolution has taken something thats true micro evolution and given it far to much creative power. They have mixed a truth with a lie.
Unlike the bible writers who had all the science.That doesn't make sense. Darwin didn't have access to the type of evidence we have today such as the genetic evidence which will give us a more accurate picture. It was mostly based on observational evidence and we know from experience that this is unreliable. Darwin stated that evolution had to show the gradual transitions of one creature to another in a sort of blending of all animals. He also stated that he couldn't prove that because there wasn't enough evidence at that point and there were gaps in the fossil records. He was sure that the fossil record would come up with more evidence as time went by.
Unlike the bible writers who had all the science.So there wasn't emphatic evidence for evolution them. It was based on assumption. This is also shown by the fact that Dobransky the father of the modern synthesis of evolution pushed to allow the assumption that macro evolution was the same as micro evolution over a long period of time even though it had never been observed,tested and verified.
This always comes up. I guess you could say its like species. But even species is ambiguous. There can be a few different meanings to what a species is. But generally the animals cant breed and there are limitations to how far you can change their genetic makeups for adding variations. But also for morphological purposes a species isn't always a good example. There can be may species of bats for example according to evolution but all those bats will still look the same. So I would call all those bats a kind of animal.
No one claims a rodent will become a lizard.The only reason they are called species with evolution is because the different groups of bats have been isolated from each other and cannot mate any more to produce fertile offspring's. But those differences dont mean that the bat is going to continue to become different to the point that it becomes a lizard or whatever it becomes.
Which is why DNA is so close.Darwin call the different species we see in a kind just the vast variation of the same kind originally. So even though some couldn't mate with each other anymore they were all still seen as the same kind of animal with a lot of variations. And thats what it really is. Because there are limits to evolution where the genetic changes come to a point where they cannot go any further the changes or variations stay within the boundaries of that kinds gene pool. They cant take on new genetic info and ability that wasn't there in the first place. That is what the tests have found and there's no support for one kind on animal evolving into a completely different kind.
Mutations die, evolution isn't mutations. Imagine traveling to China, one step a minute, this is the speed evolution works at.In fact the animals genetics will weed out any mutation and try to set right any copying mistakes. Mutations are basically bad. Even a so called beneficial one comes with a cost to fitness and will not be selected in the end. The myth of mutations which are a harmful and a copying mistake of what is already good making something better is untrue. Evolutionists just want to use this process to build a theory that is based on a limited mechanism.
Not claims, factual science.When you consider that a microbe has to become an amphibian which eventually will become a fish and then land creature ect then it is making amazing claims. A microbe doesn't have and never did have the genetic info and ability to create more complex body parts. Whether you want to say it happened in tiny steps or not it is still creating something that wasn't there in the first place. Evolution just wants to make it sound easier by breaking it down into small bit size pieces so it seems achievable. Then they add time and presto you have creation. Its just a world view of trying to take the credit for Gods creation by some naturalistic self making process that takes God out of the picture.
No.
When god wants something done, he often gets men to do it for him. Or are all those men from 10,000 BC and before doing god's work or just saying it was god's work?...
If this true than anything we learn has the potential to change at any given time.
Yet it doesn't.
Can you quote 10 biologists who Stove has used as his basis for thinking that biologists teach that women are inherently inferior to men? You claim there are facts, but I find that people who claim there are facts are often the least prepared to actually present those claimed facts when asked.
Which interpretation of Genesis are you attempting to refute? There are quite a few more. Take into consideration that it may not be the case that the Genesis description past the first verse is speaking of the creation of the universe, but rather the Earth in this solar system.Easily done. Genesis tells us that there was earth and water before light. But cosmology tells us that the elements that constitute water (for example) simply did not exist and there was a quark-gluon plasma, instead.
Again with all the evidence that can be googled in support of natural selection, I have not found anything that actually supports the belief that there are no causes which transcend the physical world. You continue to make assertions, yet your faith in naturalism remains to be on par with another religious man.Once science proves how the Big Bang happened, you will have to fall back to believe what created, what created the Big Bans was a god. Moving further away from the bible.
The established proof does point to evolution via natural selection. It was also guided by cataclysmic events and changes in the Earth's environment. One has to factor that in.
There are mountains of evidence, Google it.
Naturalism noun
1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
"his attack on naturalism in TV drama"
2. the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
"this romanticized attitude to the world did conflict with his avowed naturalism"
If the Bible is accurate, the model described in Genesis would be true. However, there's ongoing debate as to which interpretation of the Genesis count is correct; what was the writer attempting to describe? That's the question some theologians are spending time on. I don't quite understand what you mean by tension, as there are multiple models in naturalism as to how life, and this planet arose. The fact that there are different interpretations doesn't mean we should throw out the book, the same goes for science.There's a bit of tension in what you've written here. First, you say that there is no conflict between faith and science, but then you introduce Genesis as a model of how we came about. If the model given in Genesis is contrary to what we observe, then that would be a point of conflict. You later alluded to an even deeper problem, which is that Genesis doesn't provide a single model; there are as many Genesis models as there are interpretations of Genesis. If any one of these models is falsified, the believer can simply reinterpret the text and shift to another model.
When an agnostic doesn't believe in God, that isn't faith. When an atheist makes the positive assertion that no God exists, and naturalism is valid, he is making a faith based claim. What evidence are you aware of which helps prove naturalism?No faith is needed to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence.
The burden of proof is on the theist if the theist says he knows that God exists. If he is merely sharing his faith, we can say, "well that's what you believe, but I don't".The burden of proof is on the theist. No faith is required to reject a claim for which there is no good evidence.
In the event of any time related / causality phenomena, we would never know. The universe would end and then begin again and either we would cease to exist or everything we know would retroactive change to align with the new universe (watch some Sci-Fi time travel movies to see what I'm talking about).
Also, "if" God was on a higher plane of existence and outside time and space, then there would be very different frames of reference. Everything God wanted in frame A) could have happened in the period of 5 seconds, but for us down here in frame B) it could have taken 5 billion years...
Also, it is worth noting that the length of time of our existence-- especially when held against the entire lifespan of the universe, is so infinitesimally small that it doesn't make a good yard stick for measuring the frequency of change in the universe (if said change were observable). Hmmm.... speaking of which, I recall various universal expansion models that show that the speed of light and other physical universal constants did change over time from the big bang till now... However, to be fair, cosmology is very theoretical and a lot of stuff is up in the air...
Which interpretation of Genesis are you attempting to refute?
Nothing about fossil records show that naturalism is true.
If the Bible is accurate,
Well, we actually have evidence to support current science. Your "final science, the end of inquiry" seems to be something you've made up as a rhetorical trick. Reasonable people should prefer the former, if simply because it exists here in reality.
The nice thing about not pretending that religious poetry from 5000 years ago is science is that we can totally ignore questions such as this when doing real science.
Unless you're a computer, and not actually comprehending what was written, a rational mind, such as the one you have is interpreting what it reads. Another thing, are you reading it in Ancient Hebrew? Why not post a few verses from the text attached with your thoughts of what the writer was trying to express?Gen 1:1-3 But I'm not interpreting it. I'm just reading what it says.
Oops, I should have said, I'm unaware of how naturalism is proved via the fossil record. Please enlighten me as to how it is, if it actually is. I'll also admit, what I said was a belief, since it's quite hard to make a scientific* case for or against naturalism due to insufficient data.Please provide evidence to support this.
What evidence shows that the Bible is not accurate?It's not: as has been shown in this very message.
All the best.
No reason, just a mathematical-like premise based on a hypothetical model. "If" A occurred "then" B would result.If it would be undetectable what reason do you have to suspect it has happened.
You are wrong. You put forth the argument, "Well, if Q happened then why didn't we observed XYZ..." and my hypothesis and hypothetical construct explains why we wouldn't observe XYZ. Unfortunately, since with current physics time travel is impossible and thus we can't perform experiments, we can however play in math space and answer various "what ifs".If it would be undetectable what reason do you have to suspect it has happened. To take it one step further there could have been several 'higher plane' entities battling it out constantly rebooting the universe ever Thursday. As a hypothesis it has zero explanatory power..
You need to provide evidence for this higher plane with an alternate space time.
....Please show which part of cosmology is up in the air.
All the best.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?