Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out

[armorpl8chikn]

They are the same. The only required calibration is time measurement. Once you adjust creating the heavens and earth in 7 days to millions of years measured by man (a day to God is millions of years to us), everything else falls into place. Read Genesis with the lense of God using evolution as his tool and it all makes sense.

I realized this when I was young. Watching people debate the two theories made me realize they were saying the same thing but not realizing it due to their unbending faith in either science or religion. It actually strengthens both beliefs because science proves religion and this is where Darwin missed the opportunity.

Darwin was religious and sat on natural selection and debated on publishing his findings as he knew it would change the world and feared it would do so for the worst. It's because he thought natural selection competed with creationism instead of realizing it was simply explaining how God did it. He had health problems due to the stress and weight of the situation. His colleagues talked him into publishing because there were other scientists working the same hypothesis and were going to beat him to it. In my opinion, had he made the connection that his findings were actually proving creationism/Genesis and published it this way then science and Christianity would be united today.

No.
A day is as a thousand years and a thousand years a day. Not a million. And, thats not referencing the creation event.
There is a tricky paradox in your theory, that 6 litteral days meant, maybe, 6 millions.
What is written is very clear. A tree can't live 3 days without the sun, let alone 3 million years.
Its all very clear but we are lazy and don't really know what it says cause we don't study.
You believe it, or you dont.

 

[Stone111]

They are the same. The only required calibration is time measurement. Once you adjust creating the heavens and earth in 7 days to millions of years measured by man (a day to God is millions of years to us), everything else falls into place. Read Genesis with the lense of God using evolution as his tool and it all makes sense.

I realized this when I was young. Watching people debate the two theories made me realize they were saying the same thing but not realizing it due to their unbending faith in either science or religion. It actually strengthens both beliefs because science proves religion and this is where Darwin missed the opportunity.

Darwin was religious and sat on natural selection and debated on publishing his findings as he knew it would change the world and feared it would do so for the worst. It's because he thought natural selection competed with creationism instead of realizing it was simply explaining how God did it. He had health problems due to the stress and weight of the situation. His colleagues talked him into publishing because there were other scientists working the same hypothesis and were going to beat him to it. In my opinion, had he made the connection that his findings were actually proving creationism/Genesis and published it this way then science and Christianity would be united today.

Here is a re calibration for you... Take your dick and place it up against a door jamb then slam the door shut... You have really taken absolute stupidity to an all new level.

 

[flogxal]

Interesting read on the subject of free will amd relationships to time-jumping, gravity and quantum super-position:

Testing A Time-Jumping, Multiverse-Killing, Consciousness-Spawning Theory Of Reality

Roger Penrose proposes a conscious observer doesn’t cause wave function collapse. A conscious observer is caused by wave function collapse.

www.forbes.com

Oh man, those theoretical physics people are worse than The Amazing Kreskin.

They literally just make stuff up, and then make up theories to defend the absurd fantasies. It's worse than a poker game, yet some think it's science.

You would think that as of the late 20th/early 21st Centuries, con artists would not be part of Science or academics generally. Most of the theoryphys people are equivalent to tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers, ouija board operators, or seance guides. They ought to be hanging with the traveling carnivals, rather than taking up space and money at universities.

 

[camotoe]

Man, it's a slow day down on the bayou,,,


It was either read all that nonsense, or fuck alligators.......

 

[lash]

Man, it's a slow day down on the bayou,,,


It was either read all that nonsense, or fuck alligators.......

So, how ‘bout them gators?

 

[kthomas]

Yes, I guess so. Darwinism, which led to current gene theory is being challenged by a number of scientists now, who are finding that nature does not necessarily follow the “rules” that have been generally accepted for over 100 years now. There’s more to it than that.

Established science, having a lot at stake with gene theory (the theory that all traits are predetermined by our genes) and are doing their level best to suppress and discredit new information. Big shocker, huh?

In short, if gene theory were 100% true, we should already have cures for things like cancer and all sorts of other diseases and maladies, many ‘hereditary’. Why do we not then? Hint it’s not (only) because big pharma wants you in their pockets.

COVID clearly illuminated how corrupted and dogmatic our scientific institutions are.

These institutions act as gatekeepers to protect sacred narratives, acting as their own religions that demand unquestioning allegiance from their sycophantic practitioners.

Question the chosen narrative, and you will be ostracized from polite society.

During COVID you weren't allowed to question anything the institutions implemented in their response. Where was the scientific basis that COVID spread from large droplets, rather then aerosols? Where did 6 feet come from? Lockdowns? Cloth masks? I can go on and on.

The biggest red flag was around COVID origins. If you even dared to ponder if COVID came from the lab right next to the outbreak, that happens to have the world's largest collection of bat based CoV viruses and was known to be performing risky GoF research - you were a racist and a xenophobe. However, it wasn't racist or xenophobic to assume that the virus emerged zoonotically from an outdoor market because of an entire cultures poor hygienic standards. Explain that one to me

 

[TriggerJerk!]

 

[Gogga]

The biggest issue with all this is there is too much information for one person to process. I think we'll have to wait until we get real general AI, not the fake stuff they're trying to flog at the moment. We're also a few hundred years into science, yet you'd think we'd discovered everything the way some talk. I'd like to bet in 100,000 years we'll know a little more

I've worked with scientists, they're just like anyone else. They have strengths and weaknesses and make mistakes, they have egos and beliefs and can be corrupted. Best to look at the bigger picture than just the ideas of one. Isaac Newton was brilliant but also loved a bit of alchemy.

As for beliefs, believe anything you want, doesn't mean it's true. I'm more interested in the truth than what makes me feel good, but we should all try to live and let live...

 

[TriggerJerk!]

What I have learned after >39 years in science is few have read ANYTHING written by Darwin (“The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms” was likely his best in some ways) and even fewer have read extensively on the alternative mechanisms of evolution (and if this describes you…. Rejoice). Most students can not provide a concise definition of evolution (i.e., the change in gene frequency over time), and fewer can give you a simple explanation of Darwin’s theory (i.e., natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution: most will answer incorrectly “the theory of evolution”). Yet everyone has an opinion and modern academia is full of self aggrandizing assholes that live to stir the pot. It is truly amazing we get anything done!

Add the historical miasma of the infamous “Scopes Trial”, with it’s ontological conflation, and you have the perfect setting for an unending argument.

My advice: first get the question and premises right, leave the Almighty out of it, and enjoy.

And before anyone flames me, go read Genesis again! It tells you God made the world and everything on it…… but it DOES NOT TELL YOU HOW! Hint: you take a bite of the apple after being told not to…. and you get to figure it out yourselves.

Hats off to @lash for handing the audience a “hand grenade”. It is a fun topic, and watching the debate provides a valuable measure of American education (e.g., logic, philosophy, and science).

 

[armorpl8chikn]

go read Genesis again! It tells you God made the world and everything on it…… but it DOES NOT TELL YOU HOW!

 

[camotoe]

What I have learned after >39 years in science is few have read ANYTHING written by Darwin (“The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms” was likely his best in some ways) and even fewer have read extensively on the alternative mechanisms of evolution (and if this describes you…. Rejoice). Most students can not provide a concise definition of evolution (i.e., the change in gene frequency over time), and fewer can give you a simple explanation of Darwin’s theory (i.e., natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution: most will answer incorrectly “the theory of evolution”). Yet everyone has an opinion and modern academia is full of self aggrandizing assholes that live to stir the pot. It is truly amazing we get anything done!

Add the historical miasma of the infamous “Scopes Trial”, with it’s ontological conflation, and you have the perfect setting for an unending argument.

My advice: first get the question and premises right, leave the Almighty out of it, and enjoy.

And before anyone flames me, go read Genesis again! It tells you God made the world and everything on it…… but it DOES NOT TELL YOU HOW! Hint: you take a bite of the apple after being told not to…. and you get to figure it out yourselves.

Hats off to @lash for handing the audience a “hand grenade”. It is a fun topic, and watching the debate provides a valuable measure of American education (e.g., logic, philosophy, and science).

View attachment 8444387

Actually it says he spoke it into being,,,,,, but Carry on Boomer.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

Actually it says he spoke it into being,,,,,, but Carry on Boomer.

Damn kids……get off my lawn



P.S.

“The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” by Steven Jay Gould

“Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller

Are both good reads for those interested in the topic.

 

[flogxal]

What I have learned after >39 years in science is few have read ANYTHING written by Darwin (“The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms” was likely his best in some ways) and even fewer have read extensively on the alternative mechanisms of evolution (and if this describes you…. Rejoice). Most students can not provide a concise definition of evolution (i.e., the change in gene frequency over time), and fewer can give you a simple explanation of Darwin’s theory (i.e., natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution: most will answer incorrectly “the theory of evolution”). Yet everyone has an opinion and modern academia is full of self aggrandizing assholes that live to stir the pot. It is truly amazing we get anything done!

Add the historical miasma of the infamous “Scopes Trial”, with it’s ontological conflation, and you have the perfect setting for an unending argument.

My advice: first get the question and premises right, leave the Almighty out of it, and enjoy.

And before anyone flames me, go read Genesis again! It tells you God made the world and everything on it…… but it DOES NOT TELL YOU HOW! Hint: you take a bite of the apple after being told not to…. and you get to figure it out yourselves.

Hats off to @lash for handing the audience a “hand grenade”. It is a fun topic, and watching the debate provides a valuable measure of American education (e.g., logic, philosophy, and science).

View attachment 8444387

TriggerJerk, I did my ugrad in Bio, about 40 yrs ago. It was a good program, thorough and rigorous. From 1st sem Fr yr to 1st sem Jr yr went from 33 students to 8, the leavers found it too tough.

I would call "evolution" a concept that goes well beyond genetics, and say it is shown in the developmental phases most clearly. From my view, genes "write the maps" but expression is what matters. Expression can be where adaptation resides.

The rush to see genes as dispositive is a 21st Century thing in Bio and I would say it is a bad direction. And I liked genetics and molecular bio.

 

[n2ishun]

Actually it says he spoke it into being,,,,,, but Carry on Boomer.

So you apply to the "God was an alien wizard" theorem ?

 

[johnnycat]

What I have learned after >39 years in science is few have read ANYTHING written by Darwin (“The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms” was likely his best in some ways) and even fewer have read extensively on the alternative mechanisms of evolution (and if this describes you…. Rejoice). Most students can not provide a concise definition of evolution (i.e., the change in gene frequency over time), and fewer can give you a simple explanation of Darwin’s theory (i.e., natural selection as a possible mechanism for evolution: most will answer incorrectly “the theory of evolution”). Yet everyone has an opinion and modern academia is full of self aggrandizing assholes that live to stir the pot. It is truly amazing we get anything done!

Add the historical miasma of the infamous “Scopes Trial”, with it’s ontological conflation, and you have the perfect setting for an unending argument.

My advice: first get the question and premises right, leave the Almighty out of it, and enjoy.

And before anyone flames me, go read Genesis again! It tells you God made the world and everything on it…… but it DOES NOT TELL YOU HOW! Hint: you take a bite of the apple after being told not to…. and you get to figure it out yourselves.

Hats off to @lash for handing the audience a “hand grenade”. It is a fun topic, and watching the debate provides a valuable measure of American education (e.g., logic, philosophy, and science).

View attachment 8444387

Why would I listen to someone that ruins their bourbon with a big freaking ice cube?

 

[TriggerJerk!]

TriggerJerk, I did my ugrad in Bio, about 40 yrs ago. It was a good program, thorough and rigorous. From 1st sem Fr yr to 1st sem Jr yr went from 33 students to 8, the leavers found it too tough.

I would call "evolution" a concept that goes well beyond genetics, and say it is shown in the developmental phases most clearly. From my view, genes "write the maps" but expression is what matters. Expression can be where adaptation resides.

The rush to see genes as dispositive is a 21st Century thing in Bio and I would say it is a bad direction. And I liked genetics and molecular bio.

Agreed.

Behavior and environment are major players in this game. Our recent and growing knowlege of genetics allows us to measure the amount, and the rate, of change in gene frequencies. We now know that phenotypic change can be very rapid or extremely slow depending on the abiotic context.

 

[Stone111]

Agreed.

Behavior and environment are major players in this game. Our recent and growing knowlege of genetics allows us to measure the amount, and the rate, of change in gene frequencies. We now know that phenotypic change can be very rapid or extremely slow depending on the abiotic context.

As usual, another evolutionism worshipper takes being a sesquipedalian to all new lows... When in doubt or feeling chalenged just throw out a bunch of big words or logical fallacies topped off with straw man arguements to detract from the fact you are really selling dog shit wrapped up in a pretty little box. evolution barely even qualifys as being a postulate at best.

 

[Stone111]

 

[wade2big]

As usual, another evolutionism worshipper takes being a sesquipedalian to all new lows... When in doubt or feeling chalenged just throw out a bunch of big words or logical fallacies topped off with straw man arguements to detract from the fact you are really selling dog shit wrapped up in a pretty little box. evolution barely even qualifys as being a postulate at best.

Do you just not agree with the current theory of evolution in of itself or are you a step away from arguing for a god in place of it? If you are arguing for a god, which one of the several hundred specifically are you somehow convinced to be real and why?

 

[flogxal]

Agreed.

Behavior and environment are major players in this game. Our recent and growing knowlege of genetics allows us to measure the amount, and the rate, of change in gene frequencies. We now know that phenotypic change can be very rapid or extremely slow depending on the abiotic context.

Theorized, rather than known, I think, on the rate observed.

 

[Ronws]

Do you just not agree with the current theory of evolution in of itself or are you a step away from arguing for a god in place of it? If you are arguing for a god, which one of the several hundred specifically are you somehow convinced to be real and why?

Just the one and only one who forgives if you accept the help of His son. That one.

Trust me or don't trust me, you are a sinner, a hypocrite and a liar. We all are, to some extent.

But stick with your something out of nothing thing. You will not be able to explain or moral code with just evolution. You offer no hope, no right or wrong, no good or bad. You offer nothing against MAPs. Heck, evolution does not even offer a reason for your moral indignation against law enforcement, abusive or otherwise.

I know you are operating on faith, you just want to rebel against "Daddy."

 

[lariat]

Do you just not agree with the current theory of evolution in of itself or are you a step away from arguing for a god in place of it? If you are arguing for a god, which one of the several hundred specifically are you somehow convinced to be real and why?

Honest question: are you asking this to be intentionally abrasive or just doing it to rail against Christianity?

 

[wade2big]

Just the one and only one who forgives if you accept the help of His son. That one.

Trust me or don't trust me, you are a sinner, a hypocrite and a liar. We all are, to some extent.

But stick with your something out of nothing thing. You will not be able to explain or moral code with just evolution. You offer no hope, no right or wrong, no good or bad. You offer nothing against MAPs. Heck, evolution does not even offer a reason for your moral indignation against law enforcement, abusive or otherwise.

I know you are operating on faith, you just want to rebel against "Daddy."

Everything you just said is nonsense. The so called all knowing all powerful god’s only answer for the failures and mess it created is to manifest on earth and sacrifice itself to itself to somehow save us from the wrath only itself can bestow upon us and all we have to do to escape eternal torture in a hell created by this same loving god is to believe in some ancient fairytales compiled over a thousand years or so that were hand elected by the heads of church to go into a holy library of sorts. We are asked to do so out of faith and fear of hell alone. There is no compelling reason or even the slightest bit of evidence to do so.

It does not take a man made god to explain morals. The god of the bible is an immoral abomination in its own right. Blood sacrifices, torture, mental abuse, slavery, and genocide are par for the course under this inept and cruel supernatural being described in the bible. Morals can come from both compassion and selfishness. I know that getting kicked in the nuts hurts so I don’t want to get kicked in the nuts by anyone, therefore I don’t go around kicking people in the nuts. Another example would be that life is made easier as people work together. It’s necessary for the survival of humans just as it is for many other species. We all understand that raping and murdering each other makes it tough to coexist for a myriad of reasons so most of us refrain. I would argue that you would not resort to plunder if you were to have absolute certainty the god of the bible doesn’t exist. You are probably better than that.

 

[wade2big]

Honest question: are you asking this to be intentionally abrasive or just doing it to rail against Christianity?

I asked to get an answer to my question for clarification. You guys have been spitting god stuff so why is it wrong to ask for clarification of what one believes and to offer a counter perspective? There are many gods and many people have different god beliefs. Its valid. One’s beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny. I don’t see a problem as long as we are civil and aren’t mother fucking each other.

 

[Ronws]

Everything you just said is nonsense. The so called all knowing all powerful god’s only answer for the failures and mess it created is to manifest on earth and sacrifice itself to itself to somehow save us from the wrath only itself can bestow upon us and all we have to do to escape eternal torture in a hell created by this same loving god is to believe in some ancient fairytales compiled over a thousand years or so that were hand elected by the heads of church to go into a holy library of sorts. We are asked to do so out of faith and fear of hell alone. There is no compelling reason or even the slightest bit of evidence to do so.

It does not take a man made god to explain morals. The god of the bible is an immoral abomination in its own right. Blood sacrifices, torture, mental abuse, slavery, and genocide are par for the course under this inept and cruel supernatural being described in the bible. Morals can come from both compassion and selfishness. I know that getting kicked in the nuts hurts so I don’t want to get kicked in the nuts by anyone, therefore I don’t go around kicking people in the nuts. Another example would be that life is made easier as people work together. It’s necessary for the survival of humans just as it is for many other species. We all understand that raping and murdering each other makes it tough to coexist so most of us refrain. I would argue that you would not resort to plunder if you were to have absolute certainty the god of the bible doesn’t exist. You are probably better than that.

Beg to differ. And evolution offers absolutely zero support for good behavior. It is blind and stupid. In fact, most people, including the stalwart atheists, misunderstand survival of the fittest. That evolution guides improvement. It does not. It is called non-radial adaption. You don't grow an opposing thumb because you need one. It's just that a creature with an opposing thumb happened to survive.

I find most evolutionists are specifically disregarding the findings in biology because it does "not fit the narrative."

No, getting kicked in the nuts is not enjoyable to you and to me. But it is to others. On YT, you can see vids of asian guys taking a full kick to the nuts to prove their system is superior. What is that accomplishing?

Kiddy diddlers. In all of the time, especially in the past, where a father or mother could get rid of an offender, why did that not die out as a behavior? Because evolution doesn't work, certainly not in a radial adaption sense.

You have not disproven the existence of God and the worn out "why do bad things happen" reasoning does not prove anything.

 

[mosin46]

Do you just not agree with the current theory of evolution in of itself or are you a step away from arguing for a god in place of it? If you are arguing for a god, which one of the several hundred specifically are you somehow convinced to be real and why?

yes the answers to these questions remain and are still works in progress. the final answers will likely never be know. new knowledge yield new ideas. eg we now know that environment does have an effect on genetics.
the problems caused in this search by the "creationists" remain: i believe in the bible because it is the word of god and it tells me that it is in the bible. that lack of rational thought has caused all kinds of problems that are TNTC.
prove god does not exist? are you aware that one can not disprove a negative?

 

[wade2big]

yes the answers to these questions remain and are still works in progress. the final answers will likely never be know. new knowledge yield new ideas. eg we now know that environment does have an effect on genetics.
the problems caused in this search by the "creationists" remain: i believe in the bible because it is the word of god and it tells me that it is in the bible. that lack of rational thought has caused all kinds of problems that are TNTC.
prove god does not exist? are you aware that one can not disprove a negative?

I agree. The bible is the claim, not the evidence. There lies the problem. The bible can only be argued using claims written in the bible itself as there is no outside justification. It couldn’t be more circular. I’m not trying to disprove god. I’m just arguing why its silly to believe one exists. Surely this powerful being could make itself known in a way other than stories written in ancient texts.

 

[wade2big]

Beg to differ. And evolution offers absolutely zero support for good behavior. It is blind and stupid. In fact, most people, including the stalwart atheists, misunderstand survival of the fittest. That evolution guides improvement. It does not. It is called non-radial adaption. You don't grow an opposing thumb because you need one. It's just that a creature with an opposing thumb happened to survive.

I find most evolutionists are specifically disregarding the findings in biology because it does "not fit the narrative."

No, getting kicked in the nuts is not enjoyable to you and to me. But it is to others. On YT, you can see vids of asian guys taking a full kick to the nuts to prove their system is superior. What is that accomplishing?

Kiddy diddlers. In all of the time, especially in the past, where a father or mother could get rid of an offender, why did that not die out as a behavior? Because evolution doesn't work, certainly not in a radial adaption sense.

You have not disproven the existence of God and the worn out "why do bad things happen" reasoning does not prove anything.

I never once argued for or against evolution and I never used the “why do bad things happen argument either”. You just make stuff up as you go. To argue your moral claims, I said the god of the bible itself ordered rape, murder, genocide, torment, torture and did many of these things under its own accord as well while going one demented step further by torturing the soul for eternity. There is nothing moral about these actions. This is also NOT saying that nothing good is written in the bible. Its just saying one must pick and choose using his own moral code to decipher what is and isn’t.

 

[lariat]

I asked to get an answer to my question for clarification. You guys have been spitting god stuff so why is it wrong to ask for clarification of what one believes and to offer a counter perspective? There are many gods and many people have different god beliefs. Its valid. One’s beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny. I don’t see a problem as long as we are civil and aren’t mother fucking each other.

That’s a fair response. I would say that I am trying to stay within the guidelines of the forum so I cannot give full answers. PM me for the deets.

I will venture to say that our beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, both archaeologically and scientifically. But it turns into a combat so it isn’t worth totally pursuing here. I understand why LL doesn’t want it.

I’m not afraid of a counter perspective. Nor am I afraid of a totally opposite view. But what I am not willing to do is get in a debate where it is forbidden by the mods or just fight instead of having a conversation, which I perceive is where this is headed.

You can say there are many gods. That is true, and it is true Scripturally. But the is only one true God. Beyond that, we need to take it to the PM’s.

 

[mosin46]

a reasonable counter. however,read "the bible unearthed" by finklestein. yea,an israli jewish archeologist. i am a bit surprised by the book not being banned in israel like the ienaga book was in japan. the age,extent and substance of much in the old testament is brought sharply into question by use of hard archeological evidence. doesn't address the new testament which is an entirely different discussion.

 

[wade2big]

That’s a fair response. I would say that I am trying to stay within the guidelines of the forum so I cannot give full answers. PM me for the deets.

I will venture to say that our beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, both archaeologically and scientifically. But it turns into a combat so it isn’t worth totally pursuing here. I understand why LL doesn’t want it.

I’m not afraid of a counter perspective. Nor am I afraid of a totally opposite view. But what I am not willing to do is get in a debate where it is forbidden by the mods or just fight instead of having a conversation, which I perceive is where this is headed.

You can say there are many gods. That is true, and it is true Scripturally. But the is only one true God. Beyond that, we need to take it to the PM’s.

If a belief cannot be debated openly then neither side should be heard. You didn’t make this post when the side you agreed with spoke uncontested. It may not have been intentional but it’s worth pointing out.

Heck I wasn’t planning on going this direction until the other guy told me I’m born sick and ordered to be well under threats of eternal torment because his bible said so. That’s a disgusting proposition and was worth pushing back on.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

That’s a fair response. I would say that I am trying to stay within the guidelines of the forum so I cannot give full answers. PM me for the deets.

I will venture to say that our beliefs can stand up to scrutiny, both archaeologically and scientifically. But it turns into a combat so it isn’t worth totally pursuing here. I understand why LL doesn’t want it.

I’m not afraid of a counter perspective. Nor am I afraid of a totally opposite view. But what I am not willing to do is get in a debate where it is forbidden by the mods or just fight instead of having a conversation, which I perceive is where this is headed.

You can say there are many gods. That is true, and it is true Scripturally. But the is only one true God. Beyond that, we need to take it to the PM’s.

In other news.
These things always come off the rails.
Its always those screeching hollering Bible thumpers that cause it.

 

[lariat]

If a belief cannot be debated openly then neither side should be heard. You didn’t make this post when the side you agreed with spoke uncontested. It may not have been intentional but it’s worth pointing out.

Heck I wasn’t planning on going this direction until the other guy told me I’m born sick and ordered to be well under threats of eternal torment because his bible said so. That’s a disgusting proposition and was worth pushing back on.

Incorrect on your assumption as to why I posted what I did. I have no problem with the creationist vs evolution debate. Im firm enough in my faith I can take the criticism and actually find it useful and thought provoking. Makes me look for answers and consider things critically. My thing is when I perceive that there is an accusation in a convo that Christians are the problem or hold beliefs that are invalid that I tend to speak out. Note that I said perceive- that may not have been your intention and if it wasn’t then that’s my interpretation that is at fault. It’s a big tent here and I think there is enough maturity to have this thread without a ban cat meltdown. Lord knows there’s enough hatred and division out in the real world to go around.

 

[steve123]

I like watching the YouTube videos called "Answers in Genesis". These mostly point to discrepancies in evolution theory.

It's worth watching a few of those videos, especially the ones done in the last few years. After a half dozen of them the discrepancies start to add up.

Long ago, like 40 years ago, before I had fully leaned towards creationism, this thought occurred to me - hey how did mating pairs evolve at the exact same time or how did many families of mating pairs of genus come about, thus their progeny???

 

[Ronws]

I like watching the YouTube videos called "Answers in Genesis". These mostly point to discrepancies in evolution theory.

It's worth watching a few of those videos, especially the ones done in the last few years. After a half dozen of them the discrepancies start to add up.

Long ago, like 40 years ago, before I had fully leaned towards creationism, this thought occurred to me - hey how did mating pairs evolve at the exact same time or how did many families of mating pairs of genus come about, thus their progeny???

Exactly. Evolution theory has no answer for this. But a designer that knew genetics could design different strings. All that requires is a being smarter than a human, whether the smart-ass human likes that or not.

 

[Rthur]

Has anyone caught any of the "revelations" from the JWST lately concerning the big bang?

R

 

[SilentStalkr]

Has anyone caught any of the "revelations" from the JWST lately concerning the big bang?

R

Care to enlighten us? I have seen some remarkable images but haven’t followed closely. Or are you referring to the fact that it found massive galaxies that existed early in time, when they shouldn’t according to our current cosmic theories and understanding?

JWST's First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

The James Webb Space Telescope’s first images of the distant universe shocked astronomers. Is the discovery of unimaginably distant galaxies a mirage or a revolution?

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[TriggerJerk!]

As usual, another evolutionism worshipper takes being a sesquipedalian to all new lows... When in doubt or feeling chalenged just throw out a bunch of big words or logical fallacies topped off with straw man arguements to detract from the fact you are really selling dog shit wrapped up in a pretty little box. evolution barely even qualifys as being a postulate at best.

Hardly.

And not selling anything. I did offer some observations.

We are discussing evolutionary theory, so I hope genotype and phenotype are not what you are referring to as big words?

Not challenged at all. But I do enjoy watching the disussion.

 

[mosin46]

has always fascinated me that many of the lights seen in the sky,esp thru more powerful scopes,are stars that have been dead 1 mil by the time we see them. our night sky has been stable and relatively unchanged for millenia. i am certainly not smart enough to understand that trivia. universe is huge and our ability to understand any aspect of it is pretty limited.

 

[TriggerJerk!]

Theorized, rather than known, I think, on the rate observed.

You can measure the change in gene frequency between source and transplanted populations. So it is just a measurement, not theory, in this example.

 

[Mr. Z]

Yup, the gears. Also found in insects. It's almost like we weren't the first to invent mechanics. Either bacteria and bugs are smarter than us or there is intelligent design.

The first-ever naturally occurring gears are found on an insect's legs

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

View attachment 8440871

 

[Rthur]

Care to enlighten us? I have seen some remarkable images but haven’t followed closely. Or are you referring to the fact that it found massive galaxies that existed early in time, when they shouldn’t according to our current cosmic theories and understanding?

JWST's First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology

The James Webb Space Telescope’s first images of the distant universe shocked astronomers. Is the discovery of unimaginably distant galaxies a mirage or a revolution?

www.scientificamerican.com

Not yet.
Yes.

R

 

[mosin46]

if you have even my rudimentary understanding of human anatomy,you will understand that our design is anything but intelligent or efficient. the spine is a disaster waiting to happen which it often does. our oro/naso/laryngeal/esophageal interface is a mess. our knees have never been right. our circulation could be a lot more efficient. our birthing mechanism could stand some improvement. we have done great with what has developed. have become the dominate species on the planet. what we have done with that fact doesn't speak too well for our thought processing. if we are a "design" it ain't an intelligent one.

 

[flogxal]

Honest question: are you asking this to be intentionally abrasive or just doing it to rail against Christianity?

I have many Christian and Roman Catholic friends. I earned my ugrad in Bio at a Jesuit school. I don't see the lines of discussion as offensive to Christianity. Whether a Christian or Roman Catholic (or anyone else) wants to talk or think about it, there are many deities across the planet, today and in the past. What anyone should choose to worship, that does not change what sincere, honest Science appraisals of nature (thus, in Biology) have found.

You can suggest that Science, as a field, is trying to undermine religion. I don't see it that way, though I see modern attempts at undermining Science, to achieve the goals you suggest. If religion and Science were incompatible I would not have finished my BS in Bio at a Jesuit school, and I think the professors at that school who taught in Bio faculty (half Jesuit, half not) would have been unable to teach it well if the problems you suggest were on the landscape.

It's certainly possible to believe in a higher being/authority, while being a Scientist. A good Scientist knows his or her own innate leanings and biases/prejudices, and creates hypotheses objectively, with such internal bias in mind. In other words, they strive to avoid Confirmation Bias.

In the 21st Century there seems to be an effort to approve of Confirmation Bias, rather than filtering it out, or avoiding it entirely.

 

[flogxal]

if you have even my rudimentary understanding of human anatomy,you will understand that our design is anything but intelligent or efficient. the spine is a disaster waiting to happen which it often does. our oro/naso/laryngeal/esophageal interface is a mess. our knees have never been right. our circulation could be a lot more efficient. our birthing mechanism could stand some improvement. we have done great with what has developed. have become the dominate species on the planet. what we have done with that fact doesn't speak too well for our thought processing. if we are a "design" it ain't an intelligent one.

Two thoughts.

If you think human knees are an abomination, look at horses' knees. Holy cannoli, what a disaster in the waiting. All that weight up top. Those little bones. Sinew-like muscles for the length of those long bones, only hefty muscles up on the torso after connection at the hip-analogues. Human knees are far better supported!

Also, hindsight is 20-20 vision. "Could be better" opens up some weird metaphysical questions, such as "why hand perfection to the creature, when striving for perfection yields a better soul/spirit?"

As one who found comparative developmental biology, especially anatomy/physiology and especially, what made for an apex predator, physiologically, the most interesting part of my 4 yrs of study, I would say there is a lot in developmental biology comparisons which tends to show an intelligent central architecture, even if what you would prefer to see, as perfection, is not quite there.

 

[Camelfilter]

Yup, the gears. Also found in insects. It's almost like we weren't the first to invent mechanics. Either bacteria and bugs are smarter than us or there is intelligent design.

The first-ever naturally occurring gears are found on an insect's legs

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

View attachment 8440871

Just because I don't understand something, doesn't mean it is by intelligent design. Also, doesn't mean it isn't.

There are likely near infinite complex examples anyone could use.

Is it wrong to believe in evolution (science) AND God? I don't think so, because that's what I believe. As a Christian.

What others believe? That's up to them. Because it's a belief. What I believe is up to me. Not what anyone tells me to believe. Not what anyone requires me to believe (which is not possible BTW, if one doesn't believe-"whatever").

Does that make me a bad Christian in other Christian' viewpoints? Well, that's too bad if it does. Truly...

 

[TriggerJerk!]

Is it wrong to believe in evolution (science) AND God? I don't think so, because that's what I believe. As a Christian.

I agree, but would word it a bit differently.

I accept that evolution occurs, I think that natural selection is as viable a theory for a mechanism as some of the alternatives, and I do not think that we are likely to come up with a better general theory anytime soon. But my religion requires faith, as it is philosophy and not bound be evidence as is science.

 

[flogxal]

I've had science/philosophy talks with Christian and Roman Catholic people. The ones who are more science-leaning have talked about "seeing God in the gaps" -- there are many things unexplained in Biology, in Physics, in Chemistry, and especially in Biochemistry. Many things unexplained about skeletal differentiation among species within a genus, or from genus to genus, etc. These gaps, which existed when Darwin was pondering about things like birds, and their beak shapes, and what they ate/where their food resided, still exist today.

Back within the first year or 18 mos after it was published, Christian-leaning scientists spoke of Behe's book as being an argument for this "God of the gaps" mindset. Don't know if Behe meant that interpretation.

I would say honestly that I am the only member of my RC family who doesn't attend mass -- except for weddings and funerals. I was mocked by roommates & friends at my RC/Jesuit college for my detached skeptic, no-mass-attendance views. But through my 4 yrs of Bio study I saw more evidence of higher power than from any other place in my life.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

I like watching the YouTube videos called "Answers in Genesis". These mostly point to discrepancies in evolution theory.

It's worth watching a few of those videos, especially the ones done in the last few years. After a half dozen of them the discrepancies start to add up.

Long ago, like 40 years ago, before I had fully leaned towards creationism, this thought occurred to me - hey how did mating pairs evolve at the exact same time or how did many families of mating pairs of genus come about, thus their progeny???

Standing For Truth has somecreally good videos and debates.

Unfortunately all his guests are kookoo nuts, pedophiles, wife beaters, felons....if you ask the channels of the atheists, trying to tear down SFT.
When they can no longer attack your facts, they'll attack your character.
"You can't believe that guy, he beats his wife."
There are literally you tube channels dedicated to tearing down these people who are exposing the lie of evolution.
That is very telling.

 

[armorpl8chikn]

People still believe God took millions of years to make creation so....yeah, science is definitely "against" fundamental biblical principles.
The problem is they show real science, then try to sell you faith based science in the form of evolution.
Evolution posits that things evolve into better creatures. This indicates that evolution, even micro evolution is a lie. Nothing gets better, it simply mutates. Certain colored butterflies don't "evolve" that way. They are harder to see so they aren't the ones getting eaten. Pretty soon the only ones left are the ones who "evolved".
This is horse shit.
This is how they are convincing people that they are all gonna drown at the beach.
The fact that science still uses the geologic column to age the earth(circular reasoning), in spite of polystrate fossils, iron tools found in coal seams, etc. Not to mention the elephant in the room, what is the oldest LIVING organism on earth?