We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[AV1611VET]

Who cares?

You should -- if you're going to falsely accuse me of being something I'm not.

But by all means, don't let that stop you.

You have a different set of standards than I do.

I'll take the age given by geologists as a good enough working assumption.

So will I.

The age determined by members of fringe Christian sects based the the dubious reading of an ancient religious text which isn't about geology are of little interest.

What's that have to do with me?

 

[NxNW]

Really? Why it then some posters here seem to be vehemently opposed to my claim.

Nobody in science is claiming that things are proved, only that there is very strong evidence.

Don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when it cannot be proven that that history is even the result of a natural process?

Given that findings are consistent with predictions of natural processes, it's logical to at least tentatively accept that natural processes are responsible. Find some evidence that falsifies these conclusions, and we'll talk.

And don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when that history is unknown and unknowable?

We can't know every detail about what George Washington had for breakfast on September 18, 1744, but we can be sure that he lived, and that he said and did certain things along the way.

 

[NxNW]

Sure it is ... especially for those who need to believe that a certain scientific theory is the truth, but can't prove that it's the truth.

Science isn't a matter of belief, no matter how many times you falsely claim it is.

 

[NxNW]

The evolutionist mentality is effectively this:
Billions of years of mutations and natural selection can perform magic ... given enough time, a fish can turn into a dog, for example.

Nobody has ever made this claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We can't know every detail about what George Washington had for breakfast on September 18, 1744, but we can be sure that he lived, and that he said and did certain things along the way.

Given that he was 12, it was probably Froot Loops.

 

[River Jordan]

Speaking of which, I love the way evolution science considers the speciation of Green Warblers into more Green Warblers (for example) to be evidence that a mammal can descend from a fish.

Evolution science is a curious thing.

Give a link or citation to any published paper making that argument (but I suspect it'll be just like your earlier claim that you couldn't support).

 

[River Jordan]

Don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when it cannot be proven that that history is even the result of a natural process?

No, because most people don't spend time parsing about the nuance between "best scientific explanation" and "proven true". Most people figure if it's the best scientific explanation then it's probably, generally true.

I think very, very few people get hung up on your "but it's not absolutely 100% proven truth" argument. After all, it's not absolutely 100% proven truth that the rings on the old stump in my dad's back yard represent individual years, but for all intents and purposes it may as well be, unless someone gives a very good reason why they aren't.

And don't you find it curious that so many people accept ToE as a factual description for the process that produced the history of life on earth, when that history is unknown and unknowable?

Who says it's unknown and unknowable? You? Why should anyone care what you think about the science?

Yep, it's the best available scientific explanation for the history of life on earth ... for what it's worth.

Which in the minds of most people is good enough and they just move on with their lives.

 

[River Jordan]

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

I can only speak for myself, but I have no issues with my brothers and sisters in Christ who read Genesis differently than me. I've also never seen a non-YEC person accuse a YEC of not being a Christian just because of how they read Genesis.

OTOH, YECs accusing non-YEC Christians of "rejecting the Bible", "not believing Jesus", "trusting man over God", and the like is so common, it's basically a defining characteristic of YECs. A YEC just did that to me today!

 

[AV1611VET]

Fortunately, not everyone is so limited in their thinking.

Question: Yes or No?

Since humans share approximately 85% of our DNA with mice; if mice were the only animal on earth that ever existed and still exist today, would evolutionists claim we came from them?

 

[BCP1928]

You won't answer my simple questions. What's the matter ... you don't want to admit that I'm right when I claim that the history of life on earth is unknown and unknowable?
What a weak character you are.

So you don't know either and now we're even.

 

[BCP1928]

Question: Yes or No?

Since humans share approximately 85% of our DNA with mice; if mice were the only animal on earth that ever existed and still exist today, would evolutionists claim we came from them?

Evolutionists would certainly like to know if we had a common ancestor, but you haven't presented enough information to decide.

 

[River Jordan]

Question: Yes or No?

Since humans share approximately 85% of our DNA with mice; if mice were the only animal on earth that ever existed and still exist today, would evolutionists claim we came from them?

No, and that doesn't make sense.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


This thread is closed for staff review because of flaming.

While it is being reviewed, reread the site rules and the Statement of Purpose for this forum.
​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a clean up and is being reopened. Don't flame. ​