Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

Weak...a strawman/caricature of the arguments against evolution and then a response to that strawman.

Personally I prefer a computer simulation within a simulation and so forth.

Star Trek The Next Generation
Episode: Ship in a Bottle (end of last act)

"As far as Moriarty and the countess know, they're halfway to Meles II by now. This enhancement module contains enough active memory to provide them with experiences for a lifetime."

"They will live their lives and never know any difference."

"In a sense, you did give Moriarty what he wanted."

"In a sense, who knows? Our reality may be very much like theirs. All this might just be an elaborate simulation running inside a little device sitting on someone's table."

(all leave, except Barclay, who apprehensively tests his environment...)
"Computer, end program."

(Nothing happens, and Barclay smiles)

Not weak at all. Versions of these tactics have been used on this thread. How many comments have there been along the lines of ''pure chance cannot...?'' The caricature being the creationist version of evolution. Evolution is a proven principle. The evidence, if actually considered, is undeniable.

settle man, I made no mention of the creators realm being limited to a 3D interpretation,

so again,.. 1/. where was the creators realm of existence before the universe came about?
and...2/. where is the creators realm of existence at this moment?

[ie;] Is the christian heaven with father and son a realm outside our current universe?

- Where is this somewhere place-destination called Heaven or the Fathers House?

- Is it in exactly the same place it was before the universe came about?

Jesus did go away/ go somewhere when he ascended, yes? and when he returns for the judgement
he will have come from somewhere , yes?

That's another problem, Jesus is said to have promised to return in power, come to judge the world within the lifetime of those standing before him. The first Christians waited for that event, but it did not happen.

BIble Says they saw him physically ascend-go away and Bible says they will the see him coming on his return.
thus He didn't depart-dissapear in an instant beyond 3D time and space puff of God magic.

he also did not depart for heaven anywhere near the speed of light,

even at the speed of light Jesus would currently only be 2000 lights away, while our Milky Way galaxy
is 53,000 light years in size....then there's the rest of the immense universe to traverse before you can
get to the gates of heaven...

...lest of course heaven is much much closer than some believe?

Jacobs ladder has the Angels decending and ascending between heaven and earth. God's throne being said to rest upon the dome of the sky, which is based on the cosmology of that time and place.

Rrrrrr, many here think it's very very far, for some. LOL

Why would a Being capable of creating a universe, create evil or create hell?

My original point had everything to do with you, me, and most everyone posting on this thread. And to remind you, that was: most people who participate in these arguments start with an unshakable belief, and look for evidence that corroborates that belief. They take that evidence wherever they can find it.

Then you shifted the argument to the scientists who developed the theory of evolution, none of whom were included in the point I was making. I understand how and why they came up with the theory but there's not a single person commenting on thes thread who's followed that path and done what they did. Everyone commenting here is depending on the work/research/writings/publications of someone else to form and bolster their own opinions.

But by trying to shift the point I was making to the originators of the theory, you placed yourself in their company and I'm here to tell you you're not in their company, you're riding their coattails just like everyone else who supports the theory. Hence the "Galileo" comment.

I've observed these threads on evolution since I joined this site. They were going on before I joined and they'll be going on after I depart. Lots of good points made on both sides but the one thing I'm certain of is that not a single person has switched over to the other side based on what's been said. So it's entertaining to see people such as yourself attempt to "prove" their points, on both sides.

I gave up on arguing these points a while back, it's fruitless. I know what I believe, and why, and that's good enough for me.. I also know that I don't have all the answers, none of us do.

Notice the caricature "creationist". The use of caricatures is a give away that the proponent of the term doubts he can win on the merits. (If an atheist intellectual has doubts about Neo-Darwinism surely he is not a creationist, but I digress). Hundreds of studies do not verify that evolution can create life form inorganic matter or that it can create whole new body plans from pre-existing ones. They prove the opposite. Indeed, life itself and new body plans are the product of coded genetic information and Neo-Darwinism cannot account for either the inception of that information or its increase. It is true the neo-Darwinian establishment (liberal judges) have ruled that teaching the controversy is unconstitutional, but that utterly begs the question. Their decisions are poorly decided and evince a poor grasp of science. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was understood by its Framers to prohibit discrimination against homosexual marriage. This is nonsense too. Get the point? Arguments against evolution are not "notoriously errant or based on a misunderstanding of science". Intellectuals with the highest academic pedigrees (David Galernter, David Berlinski, Stephen Meyers, Phillip Johnson, James Tour, George Gilder and many, many others with the highest of IQs and credentials do not "misunderstand" evolution. Its more likely they understand if exceptionally well and hence come by their doubts honestly. The very question-begging, misrepresenting and caricature indulging nature of DBT's post suggest a lack of confidence in his own position, otherwise, he'd employ better arguments.

Here is one of those scientists DBT claims "don't understand" evolution. James Tour is one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world. Its far more likely Tour understands evolution exceptionally well, certainly much, much better than DBT and yet Tour doubts the neo-Darwinian creation myth.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour.

Crdationists sound pretty simple minded to me. Hrere wre the answers:

1. It can and it does. The mechanisms by which life evolves, including some of it becoming more complicated, are well understood. We don't yet know how inorganic stuff became simple life (see question 4) but wee shure know how organisms evolve wonce they exist.

2. There are many cases of species changing into other cpecies, and fossils keep getting found that are "missing links" between different forms. "Gaps" get smaller with each discoveery.

3. Creationists don't understnd simple physics. The second law of thermodynamics says that in a CLOSED SYSTEM, every process produces more disorder. Thus, say the cretionists, a simpler thing cannot eveolve to a more complex, or orderly, thing. Not true. The closed system includes the organism AND the earth. The organism itself can become more complex. If the second law of thermodynamics precluded evolution, it would also preclude making automobiles out of raw materials.

4. This argument is like saying, in 1900, that birds can't fly because scientists haven't figured out how to make things that fly in the laboratory--yet. Yet birds fly.

Oh, I’ve already linked some of Tour’s videos and his impressive credentials. The brain trust around here has already ruled that he is dummy with a poor grasp of the subject.

Perhaps not exclusively but as an alternative theory. All theories should be under constant attack, that's the scientific method. For goodness sake I saw an article sometime this month where Einstein's General Theory was confirmed yet again.

Excellent presentation by world renowned chemist James Tour on why evolution has not (and probably cannot) explain the origin of life.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

As I understand it evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It deals with what happened after that.

Evolution is a non-starter unless and until it can explain how life began but all evolutionists believe that in principle evolution explains the origins of life. It is the only naturalistic theory available to them and they dogmatically insist its up to the task, but in reality all they have is hand-waving and speculation against extremely improbable odds.

Two separate and different subjects/fields of study/arguments.