The Myth of Darwinian Evolution

[Greg1234]

The philosophy is simple enough, if it's different differ to natural selection and if it's the same it's an homology argument. Whatever the evidence is, it gets organized around the naturalistic assumptions that come before the evidence. Darwinism is actually a belief that natural law provides a better explanation then God acting in time and space, that's really all it amounts to.

Geocentrism and a flat earth are not issues, never were. When Galileo was in Piza questioning Aristotelian mechanics the professors lost those arguments and went for the cheap shot, they attacked his theology:

High church officials did not initially oppose Galileo's science. Indeed, one cardinal remarked that the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.

Galileo wrote that his science was "in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers" and "stirred up against me no small number of professors." They "hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly." They had "resolved to fabricate a shield for their fallacies out of the mantle of pretended religion and the authority of the Bible." (Galileo and Theology)​

What was going on was Galileo was convinced that the principles of motion were only dimly understood and he proposed a new understanding. The status quo opposed him and when they couldn't prove their points the simply accused him of heresy. The primary issue was who gets to interpret Scripture, not whether or not the earth revolved around the sun.

The Scriptures have never spoken to cosmology and no essential doctrine is involved. When it comes to Adam and Eve and the creation of the heavens and the earth that is simply not the case. To make them the same is fallacious and the fallacy is called equivocation.

Grace and peace,
Mark

They use scripture whenever they want to. When it comes to obtaining scriptural references for things which seem to go against Creationism, they'll employ literalism, quote and even bold the bible. When it comes to things that support creationism, an extensive interpretation is required, the bible is not a science book, and flat earth and geocentricism are almost simultaneously called upon in order to kill the argument. That way, no creationist can get a heads up. It's not a different bible mind you, but the same one with the ignorant men which suddenly and conveniently turns into a wise Darwinian database and the men move from sublime ignorance about the workings of the world to relying on a Darwinian framework to write scripture. This board would have hit a stalemate long ago if anytime they spoke a word of scripture, the flatearthgeocentricismliteralismnonsciencebook train was called upon with their biologos links. That's until they realize that this has nothing to do with literalism and interpretation.

 

[Jack544]

Actually evidence for animal is alot stronger, the human evidence is open to interpretation.

You know that the "evidences" of human evolution is not any weaker than animal evolution (but is, in fact, stronger). The only thing which positively supports that human is not an evolved product is the spiritual part of human, which can not be observed in genetics and can not be preserved in fossil record.

So, if you don't think human is evolved, then your argument on the animal evolution is rather strange.

 

[Mallon]

Actually evidence for animal is alot stronger, the human evidence is open to interpretation.

Believe it or not, juvie is actually right on this one. The evidence for human-chimp common descent is very convincing, due in no small part to an excellent transitional fossil record and genetic evidence.

 

[Jack544]

I still don't believe in human evolution.

 

[philadiddle]

I still don't believe in human evolution.

Why not?

 

[Jack544]

I just don't. Not enough evidence to convince me.

I believe in animal evolution, just not human evolution.

 

[philadiddle]

For those that support macro evolution or as I like to call it “atheistic evolution”, as I believe Darwin did the answer is really simple. Evolution has become a religion. It seems that its supporters have based their personal convictions, values and above all comfortable lifestyle on this idea that we are just the product of time and chance. We are just an 'accident' and there is no God. Therefore we can do what we want and when we want it, because we are not accountable to anybody. We are our own gods and we should live life to achieve maximum pleasure.

Of all the people you know who accept the evidence for evolution, how many of them do whatever they want and think they aren't accountable to anyone? I know a lot of people who accept evolution and none of them think that way. It's just a strawman you made up to avoid having to deal with the evidence.

 

[philadiddle]

I just don't. Not enough evidence to convince me.

I believe in animal evolution, just not human evolution.

What do you see in the evidence for animal evolution that you don't see in the evidence for human evolution?

 

[Jack544]

Edit: I dunno.

What do you see in the evidence for animal evolution that you don't see in the evidence for human evolution?

 

[philadiddle]

It's not what I see, it's how much.

So what is some of the evidence that you see for animal evolution?

 

[Mallon]

I just don't. Not enough evidence to convince me.

I believe in animal evolution, just not human evolution.

What evidence would convince you of human evolution?

 

[Jack544]

The fossil record. Genetics.

I think we are related to monkeys, but I also believe we are not descended from them.

So what is some of the evidence that you see for animal evolution?

 

[Jack544]

Why does it matter?

What evidence would convince you of human evolution?

 

[Mallon]

The fossil record.

You mean a fossil record like this?

Genetics.

You mean genetic evidence like this?

YouTube - ‪Ken Miller on Human Evolution‬‏

What do you find unconvincing about those lines of evidence?

I think we are related to monkeys, but I also believe we are not descended from them.

What does that mean?

 

[Jack544]

I never said it was unconvincing.

And it means what it says.

It's just what I believe. Do we have a problem? You are showing me that evidence like I have never seen it before.

You mean a fossil record like this?

You mean genetic evidence like this?

YouTube - ‪Ken Miller on Human Evolution‬‏

What do you find unconvincing about those lines of evidence?


What does that mean?

 

[Mallon]

I never said it was unconvincing.

So it's not that you don't believe that humans evolved because you find the evidence unconvincing; you just don't want to believe that humans evolved. Right?

And it means what it says.

That doesn't make any sense. In what sense are humans related to monkeys if we do not share a common ancestor with them?

 

[Jack544]

I already explained that. Read this. It's not that the evidence isn't convincing, it't that there isn't enough evidence for me. Would you like me to make a diagram? I just find that human evolution denies the Book of Genesis.

God made all the animals then and there, they evolved but remained what they are. But if humans evolved from monkeys, then God didn't make man like it says He did in Genesis.

Again, you misinterpret what I said. Who said the common ancestor was a monkey?

I had a good example, but for some reason I can't find the link backing it up. Wait a sec.

So it's not that you don't believe that humans evolved because you find the evidence unconvincing; you just don't want to believe that humans evolved. Right?


That doesn't make any sense. In what sense are humans related to monkeys if we do not share a common ancestor with them?

 

[philadiddle]

The fossil record. Genetics.

I think we are related to monkeys, but I also believe we are not descended from them.

I agree with you that we are not descended from monkeys. Our current model of evolution tells us we have a common ancestor with them, not that we evolved from them. If this is what you are saying then that's fine, I agree with that.

It does confuse me a little bit though that you say you are not convinced of human evolution in one post, then you say you believe that we are related to monkeys. Can you please clarify what you meant?

 

[Jack544]

The first thing you said is what I am trying to say.

Seeing as we have a common ancestor with them then that means we are kind of related.

I agree with you that we are not descended from monkeys. Our current model of evolution tells us we have a common ancestor with them, not that we evolved from them. If this is what you are saying then that's fine, I agree with that.

It does confuse me a little bit though that you say you are not convinced of human evolution in one post, then you say you believe that we are related to monkeys. Can you please clarify what you meant?

 

[Mallon]

It does confuse me a little bit though that you say you are not convinced of human evolution in one post, then you say you believe that we are related to monkeys. Can you please clarify what you meant?

That's the same thing I find confusing. Could you please respond to this question, Jack? You appear to be saying that you DO find the evidence for human evolution convincing, but that there's NOT enough of it, that you DO believe that humans are related to monkeys, but that humans have NOT evolved. Those appear to me to be quite the contradictions.