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.
Where did Fred Hoyle reject evolution? And you have not yet found any hurdles for the theory of evolution. All you have ever done is to demonstrate a lack of education in the sciences.I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.
So you've upgraded from scientists who reject evolution to geniuses who reject evolution... but still can't present evidence.I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.
I suppose Sir Fred Hoyle was a total ignoramus, along with many, many other geniuses who reject evolution. It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity. Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life. And it keeps falling over. The fundamental argument I've heard from evolutionists is that it happened so it happened.
You haven't made an argument. The expression you used, "beggars belief", is a direct expression of incredulity (being unwilling or unable to believe).It's an argument from impossibility, not incredulity.
Evolution addresses the diversity of life, not its origin.Evolution falls over at the first hurdle. Origin of Life.
They used a strawman?
*GASP!*
Some creationists seem to assume that X and Y Chromosomes apply to all animals and even plants. (When they don't even define sex in all mammals.)
But they made a whole comic book and everything
I am ok with adaptation within a species. It fits entirely with the Bible's narrative. I am not ok with macro evolution. I've done "part one" which is addressed primarily to theistic evolutionists. I'll do part two some time in the near future. The Coronavirus has given me a good deal of spare time............
Why not? Why limit God in the mechanisms He may use?The Bible talks about animals originating in the ocean, then appearing on land, then culminating with mankind
You could call that macro-evolution I guess?, just not by a Darwinian mechanism.
In fact it becomes more fully substantiated.I agree- some capacity for adaptation is a practically essential design feature for an animal in diverse and dynamic surroundings- and we see it in operation
whether it is also the primary design mechanism... it's a very tempting extrapolation, but gets problematic I think, the more we learn about life and natural history.
Why not? Why limit God in the mechanisms He may use?
In fact it becomes more fully substantiated.
So you've upgraded from scientists who reject evolution to geniuses who reject evolution... but still can't present evidence.
Explain why the origin of life is a hurdle. For arguments sake let's accept that abiogenesis is literally impossible and life was created by a miracle of some kind... evolution still has all the evidence that indicates that it is the source of the diversity of life.
People have pointed this out to you before... but after all these posts and all these rants, still no evidence.
Your characterization of evolution as "leaving it all up to chance" is a straw man, and I think you know it full well.I don't, so I think he can do better than leaving it all up to chance- for minds to develop that can know and appreciate his creation. He's God, he can arrange that sort of thing.. why would he not?
And your expertise in this field is...?ohhh nooo it doesn't!
Then you haven't been thinking very hard. ID is a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists in Seattle to use as a "wedge" (yes, that's what they call it) to further their totalitarian political agenda.If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...
And a quote from an astronomer who's been dead for twenty years and who probably didn't know any more about evolutionary biology than you do. Oh my! I don't know much about it either; but my background is in math and I understand the mathematics of stochastic processes used to model it. Yes, randomly distributed variation and selection can create ever so much complexity as we observe.The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology
— Fred Hoyle
Your characterization of evolution as "leaving it all up to chance" is a straw man, and I think you know it full well.
And your expertise in this field is...?
Then you haven't been thinking very hard. ID is a pseudoscientific hoax concocted by a gang of radical Calvinists in Seattle to use as a "wedge" (yes, that's what they call it) to further their totalitarian political agenda.
a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology
— Fred Hoyle
there's that term again- the Big Bang used to be a psuedoscientifc hoax also according to Hoyle
it was his quote about intelligent design also- didn't know he was a radical calvinist!?
Hoyle supported an earlier cosmological model (the steady state model) and used the term "Big Bang" to mock the newer theory. I don't recall if he referred to the BB model as *pseudo*science and really doubt he used the term hoax.
[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator,
We'll I guess he did. Not the first prominent scientist to label a real science as pseudoscience.
I start with a very simple premise: God created. There is room for adaptation, not for evolution, in that premise. Adaptation is sensible and yes, can be inbuilt genetically. There are way too many anomalies to accept evolution unless you assume that God is not real or not involved. If you are of that view, evolution is all that is left.The Bible talks about animals originating in the ocean, then appearing on land, then culminating with mankind
You could call that macro-evolution I guess?, just not by a Darwinian mechanism
I agree- some capacity for adaptation is a practically essential design feature for an animal in diverse and dynamic surroundings- and we see it in operation
whether it is also the primary design mechanism... it's a very tempting extrapolation, but gets problematic I think, the more we learn about life and natural history.
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?