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

Point out the fallacy please in the post of mine you responded to and while you're at it, point out what I've said that entails a misunderstanding of evolution.

The bible is an attempt at explaining the existence of the world and why it is the way it is made by bronze age people who did not have the benefit of science and discovery.

For a very funny and first rate take-down of Neo-Darwinism and particularly the hopelessly confused Richard Dawkins, take a read of David Stove's Darwinian Fairytales. Stove is a first rate atheist philosopher who thinks Neo-Darwinism, or at least sociobiology, is pure hokum. His case is devastating.
He makes Richard Dawkins look like an absolute fool. Its a great read. The dry humor is fantastic.



https://www.amazon.com/s?k=darwinian+fairytales&crid=337XL5N1U5AHF&sprefix=darwinian+fairytales%2Caps%2C201&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_20

If you want to put your faith in a parable based upon natural observations, that's your business.

But don't try to pass it off as science.

I'm not much of a believer but it is astounding how some core Bible truths are affirmed by science. The Bible says that "in the beginning was the word (logos, or information) and the word was God" and science has confirmed irrefutably that information in the form of digital code is the indispensable starting point of all life on earth. (BTW, Darwin didn't have a clue about any of this when he offered his theory.) DNA is nothing more than coded, Shannon complex, digital information. Protein strands are complex digitally coded information. Information therefore precedes ("comes before" for DBT's benefit) the instantiation of life. In all of human experience the only known source of Shannon complex, digitally coded information is some form of pre-existing intelligence. Some of the leading lights of materialism and Neo-Darwinism have conceded that natural selection cannot generate the necessary information, indeed the information must have been in existence before natural selection could even begin to work its "magic". Where did the information come from? The improbabilities are so bad that we have Nobel prize winning laureates hypothecating aliens from outer space. Its almost comical, yet the materialist superstition has such a firm grip on the minds of some that they remain blind to the truth.

Correction, the bible is claimed by believers to be 'massively affirmed' by science.

And your point is what? I said I'm not much of a believer.

For those referencing Genesis, who wrote it? when was it written? was it written by perfect men? or was it written by men of free will? How are you so sure that it can be taken as fact? Why is it more persuasive than the evidence of the vast fossil record? How do you know it's the word of god other than some man told me so, or you feel it in your heart? Does it come down to the idea salvation? or is it the idea that there absolutely needs to be some sort of purpose for our lives? BTW, I was reading up on it today and seems there are a few theories on the sources. Pretty interesting stuff for sure, but for me, it demonstrates that Genesis can not be taken literal.

For me, I can look out and see the wonders that mother nature provided for us. I can see the fossils or read about how the marsupials ended up in Australia and see how evolution has worked. I am going to believe that over some stories written by man.

BTW, for those that keep bringing politics into this argument, I grew up in a large strict christian family; 8 of us kids. As best I can tell, 2 of us are atheist and conservative, the other six are evenly divided between left and right and they all believe in creation. It is not a marxist or communist conspiracy to push evolution, it is the scientific community studying evidence, developing theories, testing them, conduction peer reviews. There is no need to try to put a "axis of evil" spin on evolution.

I have no illusions of a supernatural being, but if there is one, I am convinced that man got it all wrong.

This is how Christians describe how Eve could now experience pain after the Fall...

- Innerworkings of the body (e.g., pelvis bones for childbearing) no longer functioned as originally designed, causing increased sensation.
- Design changes also took place (of the original pelvic bones for childbearing), resulting in increased sensation.

so it seems we now have God interfering with the original natural design mechanism he had delegated [nature] to bring forth for Him.

I mean nature does not change those things overnight.




Christians like to fall back on the devil and demons as the cause of their problems, yet before christians mushroomed into society,

the Hebrew (O.T.) had no personified devil and no demons battling God on earth, Gods enemy was clearly identified as mankind.

with mythology you can make up/modify/add sequels of any story you want and because such beliefs are faith based ,
no proof is needed.

CF christians can see the devil at work here, like Salem witch hunters could identify real McCoy witches.

My comment wasn't aimed at you. It was not a personal remark.

you are confused again. Parable-based defenses are for the "theists". Science needs to parables and the above is no parable. Just a factual observation.

Beans, beans, the musical fruit.

In over your head, again.

Radicalized evolutionists point to observations of natural occurrences, and their confirmation bias assuages their cognitive dissonance in resolving the dilemma in favor of their faith.

Ain't no difference in a parable based upon mutations, or what appear to be similar type fossils, etc., and a parable based upon a great flood in the past.

The ones in over their heads are those who try to defend magical explanations for the existence of the world and life when all the evidence points to widespread solar system formation from clouds of cosmic gas clouds and debris from past Supernova. Life evolves, how it began is not yet understood but is a work in progress.

The argument; we don't know, therefore God, is neither a valid argument or explanation.

But who is defending "magical explanations"? Is it not those Darwinians whom the evidence has forced to hypothecate space aliens to account for the incredibly complex information necessary to instantiate life? It is true some proponents of intelligent design hypothecate God, but the theory itself does not require that God be the intelligent artificer. It only requires some sort of highly advanced intelligence. You mention the solar system, yet the Universe itself appears to have begun in a singularity of time and space out of literally nothing! Cosmologists have been very unhappy with the Big Bank theory since its inception because it implies a beginning and the instantiation of matter out of virtually nothing, thus essentially confirming the Biblical concept of a virtually inexplicable and miraculous creation event. That apparently
magical" event is what science tells us occurred and what a coincidence that it dove tails with the Biblical idea of a special creation event (and a beginning).

We are now at 90 pages and you've finally admitted "how life began is not yet understood, but a work in progress" and blithely, "life evolves". "The work in progress (how life began)" is, as a research venture, virtually dead. Read the literature. Scientists are at a loss to explain the instantiation of life and many are quite blunt about the bleak prospects of ever finding a naturalistic explanation. But hope and faith spring eternal! In any event, what does "life evolves" mean? If it means that finch beaks change in size in consequence of environmental stressors, that is wholly non-controversial, but that is not what Neo-Darwinism is really about, Its about the much grander claim that the same process that causes variation in finch beak size also has the power to morph a finch into existence from some other creature in the first instance. But that idea is contradicted by the evidence at virtually every turn, including (and especially) the fossil record. What we know is that even with intelligent intervention (in the laboratory) species can only change so far (not into new species, mind you) and when the special breeding and selection (by human intelligence) is withdrawn, the specially bred specimens revert back to the mean within a few generations. Thousands of years of dog breeding by human intelligence has not changed a dog into a cat. In other words, biology and genetics overwhelmingly suggests the immutability of species, not their changeability.

Finally, the argument isn't "we don't know, therefore God". The argument is: we know that in all of human experience specified complex information comes from pre-existing intelligence. Specified complex information is a condition precedent to the existence of life. It is essentially impossible that natural processes could have created this information. Reasoning from the evidence to the best explanation then (the same logic Darwin applied!) the best explanation is that some sort of pre-existing super intelligence is responsible for the instantiation and variety of life on earth.

The claim of special creation, the whole unimaginably vast universe created by some kind of supernatural being who is invisible and non detectable is a claim of magical creation....that the whole shebang supposedly fully formed on the command of this entity is an act of magic.

Especially when the evidence does not support the claim....we can see new stars forming out of clouds of gas, old stars at the end of their lives.....seeing objects and events billions of years back in time due to the speed of light and astronomical distances.

I asked where God was before and after creation, but it was all too hard to answer,

it seems that the outstanding feature of 'Omnipresence' slipped their minds.

What makes you think God has to "be" anywhere? This is a metaphysical question and has nothing to do with religion. But what's the down side to slandering Catholics? Not like they'll cut your head off or anything. The worst they'll do is pray for you.

He has to be somewhere or else what is omnipresence?

Or is it a brand of magic where He can be everywhere but nowhere?

Saying to be anywhere assumes a physical presence, a presence within the universe. By definition God does not need a universe to exist in. Omnipresence means God is not restricted by physical law like Starman, who must be either here or there. Again, this is simple metaphysics.

I didnt say 'anywhere' you did, and I made no mention of a physical omnipresence for God.