News:

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice: for they shall be filled. Mine eye also shall see my desire on mine enemies, and mine ears shall hear my desire of the wicked that rise up against me. The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke. I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the Lord. Let sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord.

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 1041 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking

No transitional Fossils  ???
In his book, Origin of Species, Darwin himself admitted that at the time of writing, the fossils discovered made it look like a series of acts of creation between each main order of life. Although he urged people to look for links between them, he also admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect. It therefore makes no sense what-so-ever, that man should unearth thousands of fossils every year, representing highly ‘developed’ and sophisticated life forms, and yet mysteriously there are no intermediate, half-developed life forms discovered between layers. No matter how much digging around we do, there really is no back door away from this issue. In fact so much of evolution’s credibility depends on this starting issue, nothing in this belief system evens begins to carry any weight whilst this anomaly exists. A bit like needing to throw a six to start a game of ludo.

A recent article by Jonathan Sarfati  Ph.D., F.M. explains;

Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science discusses the fossil record in several places. Creationists and evolutionists, with their different assumptions, predict different things about the fossil record. If living things had really evolved from other kinds of creatures, then there would have been many intermediate or transitional forms, with halfway structures. However, if different kinds had been created separately, the fossil record should show creatures appearing abruptly and fully formed.

The transitional fossils problem

Charles Darwin was worried that the fossil record did not show what his theory predicted:


Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.1

Is it any different today?

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them … . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.2


The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.3

And:

I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.4


As Sunderland points out:

It of course would be no puzzle at all if he [Gould] had not decided before he examined the evidence that common-ancestry evolution was a fact, ‘like apples falling from a tree,’ and that we can only permit ourselves to discuss possible mechanisms to explain that assumed fact.5


The gaps are huge

Teaching about Evolution avoids discussing the vast gulf between non-living matter and the first living cell, single-celled and multicelled creatures, and invertebrates and vertebrates. The gaps between these groups should be enough to show that molecules-to-man evolution is without foundation.

There are many other examples of different organisms appearing abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. For example, the first bats, pterosaurs, and birds were fully fledged flyers.  

Turtles are a well designed and specialized group of reptiles, with a distinctive shell protecting the body’s vital organs. However, evolutionists admit ‘Intermediates between turtles and cotylosaurs, the primitive reptiles from which [evolutionists believe] turtles probably sprang, are entirely lacking.’ They can’t plead an incomplete fossil record because ‘turtles leave more and better fossil remains than do other vertebrates.’6 The ‘oldest known sea turtle’ was a fully formed turtle, not at all transitional.   It had a fully developed system for excreting salt, without which a marine reptile would quickly dehydrate. This is shown by skull cavities which would have held large salt-excreting glands around the eyes.7

All 32 mammal orders appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record. The evolutionist paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote in 1944:


The earliest and most primitive members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous series from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.8


There is little to overturn that today.9

Excuses

Like most evolutionary propaganda, Teaching about Evolution makes assertions that there are many transitional forms, and gives a few ‘examples.’ An article in Refuting Evolution contains the gleeful article by the evolutionist (and atheist) E.O. Wilson, ‘Discovery of a Missing Link.’ He claimed to have studied ‘nearly exact intermediates between solitary wasps and the highly social modern ants.’ But another atheistic evolutionist, W.B. Provine, says that Wilson’s ‘assertions are explicitly denied by the text … . Wilson’s comments are misleading at best.’10

Teaching about Evolution emphasizes Archaeopteryx and an alleged land mammal-to-whale transition series, so they are covered in chapters 4 and 5 of Refuting Evolution. Teaching about Evolution also makes the following excuse on page 57:

Some changes in populations might occur too rapidly to leave many transitional fossils. 
 
Also, many organisms were very unlikely to leave fossils because of their habitats or because they had no body parts that could easily be fossilized. 


Darwin also excused the lack of transitional fossils by ‘the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.’ But as we have seen, even organisms that leave excellent fossils, like turtles, are lacking in intermediates. Michael Denton points out that 97.7 percent of living orders of land vertebrates are represented as fossils and 79.1 percent of living families of land vertebrates—87.8 percent if birds are excluded, as they are less likely to become fossilized.11

It’s true that fossilization requires specific conditions. Normally, when a fish dies, it floats to the top and rots and is eaten by scavengers. Even if some parts reach the bottom, the scavengers take care of them. Scuba divers don’t find the sea floor covered with dead animals being slowly fossilized. The same applies to land animals. Millions of buffaloes (bison) were killed in North America last century, but there are very few fossils.

In nature, a well-preserved fossil generally requires rapid burial (so scavengers don’t obliterate the carcass), and cementing agents to harden the fossil quickly. Teaching about Evolution has some good photos of a fossil fish with well-preserved features (p. 3) and a jellyfish (p. 36). Such fossils certainly could not have formed gradually—how long do dead jellyfish normally retain their features? If you wanted to form such fossils, the best way might be to dump a load of concrete on top of the creature! Only catastrophic conditions can explain most fossils—for example, a global flood and its aftermath of widespread regional catastrophism. (see topic: Evidence for a Global Flood )

Teaching about Evolution goes on to assert after the previous quote:

However, in many cases, such as between primitive fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and reptiles and birds, there are excellent transitional fossils.


But Teaching about Evolution provides no evidence for this! We can briefly examine some of the usual evolutionary claims below (for reptile-to-bird, see the next chapter on birds):

Fish to amphibian: Some evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved from a Rhipidistian fish, something like the coelacanth. It was believed that they used their fleshy, lobed fins for walking on the sea-floor before emerging on the land. This speculation seemed impossible to disprove, since according to evolutionary/long-age interpretations of the fossil record, the last coelacanth lived about 70 million years ago. But a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938. And it was found that the fins were not used for walking but for deft maneuvering when swimming. Its soft parts were also totally fish-like, not transitional. It also has some unique features—it gives birth to live young after about a year’s gestation, it has a small second tail to help its swimming, and a gland that detects electrical signals.12 The earliest amphibian, Ichthyostega (mentioned on p. 39 of Teaching about Evolution), is hardly transitional, but has fully formed legs and shoulder and pelvic girdles, while there is no trace of these in the Rhipidistians.


Amphibian to reptile: Seymouria is a commonly touted intermediate between amphibians and reptiles. But this creature is dated (by evolutionary dating methods) at 280 million years ago, about 30 million years younger than the ‘earliest’ true reptiles Hylonomus and Paleothyris. That is, reptiles are allegedly millions of years older than their alleged ancestors! Also, there is no good reason for thinking it was not completely amphibian in its reproduction. The jump from amphibian to reptile eggs requires the development of a number of new structures and a change in biochemistry—see the section below on soft part changes.


Reptile to mammal: The ‘mammal-like reptiles’ are commonly asserted to be transitional. But according to a specialist on these creatures:


Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species.13

Evolutionists believe that the earbones of mammals evolved from some jawbones of reptiles. But Patterson recognized that there was no clear-cut connection between the jawbones of ‘mammal-like reptiles’ and the earbones of mammals. In fact, evolutionists have argued about which bones relate to which.14


The function of possible intermediates

The inability to imagine functional intermediates is a real problem. If a bat or bird evolved from a land animal, the transitional forms would have forelimbs that were neither good legs nor good wings. So how would such things be selected? The fragile long limbs of hypothetical halfway stages of bats and pterosaurs would seem more like a hindrance than a help.

Soft part changes

Of course, the soft parts of many creatures would also have needed to change drastically, and there is little chance of preserving them in the fossil record. For example, the development of the amniotic egg would have required many different innovations, including:

The shell.


The two new membranes—the amnion and allantois.


Excretion of water-insoluble uric acid rather than urea (urea would poison the embryo).


Albumen together with a special acid to yield its water.


Yolk for food.


A change in the genital system allowing the fertilization of the egg before the shell hardens.15


Another example is the mammals—they have many soft-part differences from reptiles, for example:

Mammals have a different circulatory system, including red blood cells without nuclei, a heart with four chambers instead of three and one aorta instead of two, and a fundamentally different system of blood supply to the eye.


Mammals produce milk, to feed their young.


Mammalian skin has two extra layers, hair and sweat glands.


Mammals have a diaphragm, a fibrous, muscular partition between the thorax and abdomen, which is vital for breathing. Reptiles breathe in a different way.


Mammals keep their body temperature constant (warm-bloodedness), requiring a complex temperature control mechanism.


The mammalian ear has the complex organ of Corti, absent from all reptile ears.16


Mammalian kidneys have a ‘very high ultrafiltration rate of the blood.’ This means the heart must be able to produce the required high blood pressure. Mammalian kidneys excrete urea instead of uric acid, which requires different chemistry. They are also finely regulated to maintain constant levels of substances in the blood, which requires a complex endocrine system.19


by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

First published in Refuting Evolution
Chapter 3
1.C.R. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413. 
2.C. Patterson, letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1979, as published in Darwin’s Enigma (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 4th ed. 1988), p. 89. Patterson later tried to backtrack somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that creationists would utilize this truth. 
3.S.J. Gould, in Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin, ed. John Maynard Smith, (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), p. 140. Teaching about Evolution pages 56–57 publishes a complaint by Gould about creationists quoting him about the rarity of transitional forms. He accuses creationists of representing him as denying evolution itself. This complaint is unjustified. Creationists make it very clear that he is a staunch evolutionist the whole point is that he is a ‘hostile witness.’ 
4.S.J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History 93(2):14–23, Feb. 1984. 
5.L. Sunderland, ref. 2, p. 47–48. 
6.Reptiles, Encyclopedia Britannica 26:704–705, 15th ed., 1992. 
7.Ren Hirayama, Oldest Known Sea Turtle, Nature 392(6678):705–708, 16 April 1998; comment by Henry Gee, p. 651, same issue. 
8.
9.G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 105–106. 
10.A useful book on the fossil record is D.T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils STILL Say NO! (El Cahon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995). 
11.Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, A Review by Dr Will B. Provine. Available from , 18 February 1999. 
12.M. Denton, Evolution, a Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, MD: Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 190. 
13.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 157, 178–180; see also W. Roush, ‘Living Fossil’ Is Dethroned, Science 277(5331):1436, 5 September 1997, and No Stinking Fish in My Tail, Discover, March 1985, p. 40. 
14.T.S. Kemp, The Reptiles that Became Mammals, New Scientist 92:583, 4 March 1982. 
15.C. Patterson, Morphological Characters and Homology; in K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction, Proceedings of an International Symposium held in Cambridge, The Systematics Association Special Volume 21 (Academic Press, 1982), 21–74. 
16.M. Denton, footnote 13, p. 218–219. 
17.D. Dewar, The Transformist Illusion, 2nd edition, (Ghent, NY: Sophia Perennis et Universalis, 1995), p. 223–232. 
18.T.S. Kemp, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 309–310.

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/texttopic.asp?ID=22
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 01:54:14 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Re: Darwin
« Reply #31 on: October 24, 2022, 02:02:19 pm »
AGelbert NOTE: This post is part of a LONG back and forth between defenders of Darwin and myself. It was originally posted June 5, 2018 in my Renewable Revolution Forum.

Quote
AG: Once again, you make this categorical statement about "how evolution proceeds" as if I had not heard that mantra repeated ad nauseum throughout my college experience.

All good explanations start at the beginning, so everyone (not just you) understands what we are talking about.  Why "ad nauseam"?  - When you were at college, did the repetition of the explanation  of Darwinian evolution really make you sick?  Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.  The Roman Catholic Church rejects ID as unscientific.  Why call it a "mantra" as if it had mystical Hindu powers? You accuse me of making "ad hominem false accusations", without quoting any , because there are none.


You love to twist words, don't you? I used the word "mantra" in regard to your penchant for unnecessarily repetitious statements. Mysticism is the last thing I would accuse you of. ;D

It is true that all good explanations start at the beginning. That beginning, however, must not be laced with arrogant posturing as you ad neauseum are so fond of doing in your snide filled sophistic modus operandi. True, I am guilty of answering your grossly inaccurate assumptions about evolution with sarcasm. But, I only resorted to doing that when you showed an inability to deal with this issue politely and respectfully when you resorted to ad hominum sneering and mocking.

There are many scientists who argue, point by point, why the Standard Theory of Evolution is not backed by science (see below). This flies in the face of this erroneous assumption by you:
Quote
Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, ...


I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would actually take to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of these other points:

Quote
*Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells).

Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, *Eden pointed out that, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism!

*George Wald stood up and explained that he had done extensive research on hemoglobin also,—and discovered that if just ONE mutational change of any kind was made in it, the hemoglobin would not function properly. For example, the change of one amino acid out of 287 in hemoglobin causes sickle-cell anemia. A glutamic acid unit has been changed to a valine unit—and, as a result, 25% of those suffering with this anemia die.

Mind you, a bacterium is a prokariotic organism, far simply than the eukaryotes (eukaryote: any organism having as its fundamental structural unit a cell type that contains specialized organelles in the cytoplasm, a membrane-bound nucleus enclosing genetic material organized into chromosomes, and an elaborate system of division by mitosis or meiosis, characteristic of all life forms except bacteria, blue-green algae, and other primitive microorganisms).

There just was not enough time in our 14 billion year old universe (or a universe multiples of billions of years older, for that matter - but we will leave it at around 14 billion years for now because that is the current scientific consensus  ;)) for such complexity to have "evolved". But, it's here, isn't it?

In the face of the above the Bartel and Szostak experiment was formulated to dance around the probabilty math that undermined evolution theory. The Bartel and Szostak experiment is proof of nothing but some creative speculation from gel electrophoresis results showing an increased catalytic activity of lifeless RNA nucleotides. The probabilty math hurdle (i.e. amount of time required) for the "evolution" of the life complexity we observe in nature to have occurred by random processes is insurmountable.

You refuse to address the blatant flasehoods pushed in the conclusions of that experment. So do not talk to me about "good explanations" starting at the beginning. YOU are the one who does not want to start at the BEGINNING. Your ad nauseum repetition of evolutionist mantra is NOT for the purpose of "explanation", as was done in college, but for the ad hominem purpose of giving the readers here the impression that I am ignorant of all that mantra. 👎

Where and How life began on Earth according to Evolutionists (see below):
Quote
Palloy: Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, only a few fundamentalist Christians in the US follow Creationism/Intelligent Design.

 


Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, “artificial intelligence” research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism’s central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

Yet public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured that all known evidence supports Darwinism and that virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true.

The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001, hundreds of scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names.

The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Hungarian and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.”

Download the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list

Add your name to the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list


RECENT POSTS:

Professor Colin Reeves, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University


Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.

Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection?

Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/about/

Agelbert NOTE: This engineer's comment that I found surfing the internet pretty much summarises the truth about our reality. In the here and now, we cannot create even the simpliest of life forms, yet the evolutionists ass-u-me that there is no Creator.

Quote
John T (February 8, 2018 11:08 AM)

There may be much research attempting to prove evolution is the mechanism by which life appeared and progressed. The very foundations on which biological evolution stand, however, rest on sand which is quickly washing away.

No evidence exists to show how life spontaneously arose and as more is learned, the immense complexity of life, even in its simplest forms, demonstrates insurmountable obstacles to the beginnings of life without the work of a master engineer.

As an engineer, I understand that even the simplest of designs will never function without much thought and planning. How could it possibly be that life, so immensely complex that it is not completely understood by our most learned scholars, could have used random mutations to go from molecules to the variety we see. To believe this is foolishness! If all the world’s resources would put into creating life right now from molecules, it could not be done!

Now add in the ideas of consciousness, intellect and love... it is a wonderful creation we live in!
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 02:09:28 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Orignally posted June 13, 2018.

Agelbert NOTE: I did not write any of this well referenced material. Rather than posting the entire list of responses 🔬 to the common objections of evolutionists to their theory's  false predictions, I will post one each day.
 
You can view previous objections and the responses to them by scrolling this topic thread.

After this section is completed, we will move on to the importance of exposing the failed Darwinian Evolution Theory Predictions and a detailed discussion of said failed predictions.

Since I took pre-med in college, late in life, I am well versed in the language of molecular biology. When a term comes up that the average reader might not be familiar with, I will define it to save the reader some time.

Feel free to pass this on to friends and family, always including the references. These scholarly references are important to credibie debate. Please make sure you include them and the .DarwinsPredicitions web site link. 

.DarwinsPredictions

This section examines various concerns evolutionists often have regarding their theory’s false predictions.

Responses to common objections

False predictions often have led to productive research

Productive research can come from a great variety of scientific and nonscientific motivations, including false predictions. That productive research may have arisen from some of these predictions does not detract from the fact that they are false.

Evolutionists have fixed these false predictions

A proponent of a theory, given sufficient motivation, can explain all kinds of contradictory findings. (Quine) Typically, however, there is a price to be paid as the theory becomes more complex and has less explanatory power.

Ad hominem and denial

Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common. Such attacks, however, do not change the fact that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also, evolutionists sometimes ignore or deny the unexpected findings. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies without following up such criticisms with supporting details.

Falsificationism is flawed

It has been argued that in order to qualify as science, ideas and theories need to be falsifiable. Also, falsified predictions are sometimes used to argue a theory is false. Such naïve falsificationism is flawed (Popper) and not used here. Evolution’s many false predictions do not demonstrate that evolution is not science or that evolution is false.

False predictions are valuable in judging the quality of a theory, its explanatory power, and for improving our scientific understanding in general. Nonetheless, evolutionists sometimes reject any mention of their theory’s false predictions as mere naïve falsificationism. The failures of naïve falsificationism do not give evolutionists a license to ignore substantial and fundamental failures of their theory.

If there are so many problems evolution would have been toppled

This objection falls under the category of naïve falsificationism. Science is a reactive process. New evidence is processed, and theories are adjusted accordingly. But science can also be a conservative process, sustaining substantial problems before reevaluating a theory. Therefore the reevaluation of a theory takes time. The fact that there are problems is no guarantee a theory will have been toppled. (Lakatos; Chalmers)

Those quoted believe in evolution

Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false.

These falsifications will be remedied in the future

As scientists, we need to evaluate scientific theories according to the currently available data. No one knows what future data may bring, and the claim that future data will rescue evolution is ultimately circular.

There is no better alternative

One way to evaluate a theory is to compare it to alternative explanations. This approach has the advantage of circumventing the difficulties in evaluating scientific theories. But of course any such comparison will crucially depend on what alternative explanations are used in the comparison. If care is not taken good alternatives can be misrepresented or even omitted altogether. And of course there may be alternatives not yet conceived. (van Fraassen; Stanford) In any case, the success or failure of evolution’s predictions depends on the science, not on any alternative explanations.

No one believes these predictions anymore

Yes, this is the point. It is true that evolutionists have, for the most part, dropped many predictions that were once made by evolutionists or entailed by the theory. We can learn from this failed track record as it has implications for evolution’s complexity and explanatory power.

What about all the successful predictions?

Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias. (Klayman, Ha) One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the confirming evidence is more often retained and documented. Rarely are the many false predictions found in evolution texts. Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as overwhelmingly true. False predictions, on the other hand, are usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as open research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed, evolutionists often make the remarkable claim that there is no evidence that is contrary to evolution.

These falsified predictions are not necessary predictions of evolutionary theory. They merely reflect isolated instances of a practitioner’s surprise over specific sets of data.

The predictions were considered to be necessary when they were held. And they represented consensus evolutionary science at the time they were held. They are well documented in both peer-reviewed research papers, popular literature authored by leading evolutionists and interviews of leading evolutionists. They were not merely held by a few, individual evolutionists. Nor were they one of several possible competing predictions. That these predictions are not now considered to be necessary predictions of evolution is a reflection of the malleability of evolutionary theory and is a reminder of why a history of evolution’s false predictions is important.

References

Chalmers, A. F. 1982. What is This Thing Called Science?. 2d ed. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Klayman, Joshua, Young-Won Ha. 1997. “Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing,” in W. M. Goldstein, R. M. Hogarth, (eds.) Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

Popper, Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.

Quine, W.V.O. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:40.

Stanford, P. Kyle. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. New York: Oxford University Press.

van Fraassen. Bas C.  1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/responses-to-common-objections
« Last Edit: October 24, 2022, 04:38:26 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Originally posted July 1, 2018.

.DarwinsPredictions

Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?

Charles Darwin presented his theory of evolution in 1859. In the century and half since then our knowledge of the life sciences has increased dramatically. We now know orders of magnitude more than Darwin and his peers knew about biology. And we can compare what science has discovered with what Darwin’s theory expects.

It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to adjustments.

Evolution states that naturalistic mechanisms are sufficient to explain the origin of species. This is a very broad statement capable of generating a wide variety of specific explanations about how evolution actually occurred. In fact evolutionists often disagree about these details. So if one explanation, dealing with a particular aspect of evolution, makes false predictions, there often are alternative explanations available to explain that particular aspect of evolution. Obviously the theory of evolution itself is not harmed simply because one particular sub-hypothesis is shown to be wrong.

Failed expectations are not necessarily a problem for a theory. (Lakatos) In fact evolutionists argue that false predictions made by the theory of evolution are not problems, but rather are signs of scientific progress. With each new finding, evolutionists say, we learn more about how evolution occurred.

Nonetheless, it is worthwhile to review a theory’s false predictions. A theory’s track record can be highly informative. The history of false predictions generated by a theory tells us about its strengths and weaknesses, and how and why the theory is believed to be true.

In the case of evolutionary theory, its many false predictions reveal that the theory is not motivated by the science and that the textbook claim that evolution is a fact does not come merely from empirical evidence (see Conclusions). Therefore the objective of this paper is to collect and record, in one place, a sample of the false predictions generated by evolutionary theory.

The predictions examined in this paper were selected according to several criteria.

• They cover a wide spectrum of evolutionary theory and are fundamental to the theory, reflecting major tenets of evolutionary thought.

• They were widely held by the consensus rather than reflecting one viewpoint of several competing viewpoints.

• Each prediction was a natural and fundamental expectation of the theory of evolution, and constituted mainstream evolutionary science. Furthermore, the selected predictions are not vague but rather are specific and can be objectively evaluated.

• They have been tested and evaluated and the outcome is not controversial or in question. And finally the predictions have implications for evolution’s capacity to explain phenomena, as discussed in the conclusions.


This paper does not maintain that the predictions presented are the only fundamental predictions of evolution, or that evolution does not have successful predictions. Those are well documented in the literature.

Nor does this paper maintain that the predictions presented, though false, have not served to produce productive research.

Also, this paper does not maintain that these false predictions cannot be remedied or reversed by future scientific findings.

References

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “History of science and Its rational reconstructions.” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970:91-136.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/why-investigate-evolution-s-false-predictions
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
AGelbert NOTE: The following is my final post in this back and forth.

Alteng, school is out. You refuse to answer the question about the physical constants that provide scientific evidence that our Universe is not the result of random undirected processes. You arm wave with distractions to change the subject to the "amenable" Darwinian weeds in order to avoid addressing the intellectual bankruptcy of the "Random Universe" Core Evolution Theory Claim.

Here is a partial list of things I do not believe in: I do not believe in Astrology, the tooth fairy, the fairy god mother and the Darwinist "Directed Panspermia" ID LOONEY TOONS that you and fellow atheists think is a "plausible alternative", despite irrefutable scientific EVIDENCE that our Universe is NON-RANDOM.

I believe ALL humans are basically NOT intrinsically ethical, though ALL humans who are not mentally retarded know the difference between good and evil. I believe we are ALL basically lovers of self. THAT is the reason humans DO EVIL. THAT (SEE: Fallen Nature) is the reason we ALL need a Savior. I believe that Jesus Christ bought my Salvation with His Death on the Cross. He is my Lord and Savior.

I believe ONLY humans who WALK the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." TALK are Christians. ALL Religious Hypocrites that DO NOT WALK THE TALK are ANTI-Christians.

Faithfully following the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE is not "situational ethics optional" for a Christian.

I believe there is more hope for atheists who do their ethical best to live by the Golden Rule than for Anti-Christians who pretend to do so. God is not mocked.
👉 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8 ✨

Alteng, you do not wish to reason; you unreasonably cling to your Darwinian belief system in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. I will pray that, before you die, God will Enlighten your darkness. I was an atheist from the age of 18 to the age of 28, when I could no longer pretend that the Universe is the result of random undirected processes.

I was a hard case. If God could 🕊️ convince greedy, adulterous, Republican moron me of the TRUTH, I am certain He can 🕊️ reach you.

For those who want to pursue the subject of whether or not Evolution Theory is reality based, the following posts wilI be of service.

🕯️ Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. …
📢 I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
"Darwin admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect."
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg613/?topicseen#msg613

🕯️ June 2018 👉 I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would ACTUALLY TAKE to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of these other points:
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg614/#msg614

🕯️ These scholarly references are important to credible debate: "Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false."
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg615/#msg615

🕯️ "It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to 😉 adjustments." Read more:
Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg616/#msg616
« Last Edit: December 12, 2022, 12:02:19 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking


May 11, 2022 by Michael Egnor

If a Fetus Isn’t a Human Being, What Is It?

SNIPPET:

The Critical Scientific Issue

So the critical scientific issue at the heart of the question “when does human life begin” is: What scientific description of the tissue (let’s call it the “fetus” for brevity) before human life begins makes sense biologically? Consider the options:

1. The fetus is a part of the mother’s body.

2. The fetus is not part of the mother’s body, but is an individual of another species.

3. The fetus is not any kind of living thing — it’s just a clump of biological molecules undergoing chemical reactions.

Consider the scientific implications of each option:


Full UNVARNISHED TRUTH FILLLED article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/05/if-a-fetus-isnt-a-human-being-what-is-it/
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 11:49:53 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Atheists have no sense of Irony
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2022, 06:14:20 pm »
Tolben Mølgaard

Quote
“I don’t know, therefore God” is an obvious fallacy.

But "I dont know therefore no god" is obviously an equally obvious fallacy. To which many otherwise sharp-minded people subscribe in the name of science.

It is every bit as "Scientific" to proclaim the existence of god as it is to claim god's non-existence. (I.e. not scientific at all).



edit: i am not arguing the existence of god, I am merely pointing out that science has no plausible explanation for the existence of everything, and in the absence of a plausible explanation, it is decidedly un-scientific to discard the possibility of something god-like as the creator of all the stuff that we see around us, and for which science hasn't got the slightest clue how it came to be.

"God" is as good an explanation as anything science can put forth today. Actually a "god" is considerably less imaginative than some of the ideas that science has presented.

Moreover "god" is the only theory so far, since Science in no way or form has made any attempt to present anything remotely plausible as to explain the existence of matter and life.

Science has decided upon a Big Bang theory which may be right, but science has no explanation whatsoever to the obvious question of the initial impulse. And while the theory may be a wonderful description of early events, it is certainly no explanation as to why it happened and what triggered it.

You may of course believe in god or godlessness to your hearts fullest content. I really dont care much about whether you feel spiritual or not, but be careful not to proclaim your personal beliefs or opinions about god as having a scientific foundation. There is no such.

Currently at least.

Fred-Rick Schermer > Tolben Mølgaard

A good reply, Torben, much appreciated.

I am a structural philosopher, and the comment I have to make is that the scientific structure is distinct from the religious structure.

With a wink to Gödel, it would not be smart to use either structure and demand the other structure submits itself to the first structure.



In Religion, we find the following two distinct structural setups:

Monotheistic structure (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, minor branches in Hinduism)
Non-monotheistic structure (Hinduism, Buddhism)
in Science, we can recognize the same distinctions, with scientists adhering to the idea that:

There is a unified field of forces possible
There is no unified field of forces possible
I hope you recognize right away how the discussion about God is often one that is placed far away from reality, and that makes very little sense.

The word God in Greek is Theo, and I hope you see that the scientific word theory is based on Theo. What that means is that the original word means that God can only be the actual God if connected indeed to our reality. Anything less is not worth anyone’s time.

Just like there can be low-quality scientific theories (also not worth our time), there are low-quality ideas about God. Only when aiming for God as part of our actual reality, only then will we end up with high-quality ideas about God, just like only high-quality theories sustain a long life in science.

Just like one cannot use the grammar rules of Mandarin to English or vice versa, no one should demand that religion must follow the rules of science (or vice versa).

Must we make God real? Yes, absolutely, and that is actually a very easy exercise that should satisfy everyone.

Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer

Well, our universe is not random, as all those very precise physical constants that caused matter to coalesce after the Big Bang prove. So, our universe has a Creator. That is, a superbeing outside of time and space who intelligently designed it. The “Creator of the Universe” is an adequate definition of “God”. The atheists hate that definition, for obvious reasons. So, they came up with the “Multiverse” wishful thinking, which is totally devoid of any scientific evidence whatsoever. They are as math challenged as they are cursed by magical thinking.


Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert
I dislike the idea of a multiverse very much, Anthony, so we can shake hands there. It is such a weird concept, completely a brain fart.

Yet in as far as the word God is used, the original God can no longer exist as the exact same God today because God had to use parts of God to create creation. It is a brain fart of a different kind to think that God could have willed creation from nothing.

So, God split into two realities: the very large remnant still in original format (but diminished), and the material outcomes (in which we have linear matter with protons and neutrons and non-linear matter with electrons).

As such, there is no Almighty to God because the split that occurred is the highest aspect. This is much like space being the only infinite aspect in our universe. Even God as God exists today must bow to Space being larger than God.

Curious how you will respond.

Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
Well, I like the fact that you have thought seriously about this matter.

I understand you to mean that a “brain fart” is the act of failing to use evidence based critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion about some subject matter. Okay, going with that, the “multiverse”, a concept totally within the realm of science fiction, becomes a brain fart when it is championed by atheists as “fact”.

On the issue of God (i.e. a Superbeing that exists outside of time and space) ceasing to be Almighty (and therefore, no longer “God”) the instant God Created the Universe, I don’t see that as a no-go situation for God.

Your assumption appears to be based on God being the servant of the physical constants that govern all matter in the Universe, rather than the Designer and Creator of them.

IMHO, God is a Spirit. God is not subject to entropy, E=MC squared and so on. The Creation of the physical Universe did not take anything at all “out” of God, because there is nothing in God that is limited by material reality.

The only way your assumption would logically relegate the belief that there is an Almighty God that Created our Universe, and all Life in it, to the status of “brain fart”, is IF the material universe is all there is. I am certain that is a flawed assumption.

Since I have quite a bit of, admittedly anecdotal, irrrefutable evidence that there is a spiritual reality outside of the material cause and effect reality, I see no impediment to the belief that God continued to be God Almighty after Creating our Universe.

All that said, if you firmly believe that Atheism is “reality based” and Theism is a “brain fart”, aren’t you buying into the “random” universe meme pushed 24/7 by atheists everywhere?

How do you rationalize all those extremely precise physical constants evidencing that our universe is NOT the result of random undirected processes? Science has now irrefutably proven that our Universe is NON-Random. A logical person must then accept the fact that a Superbeing Created this Universe. That ‘WHO DID IT?’ “buck” cannot be “passed” on to the “What Superbeing ET created the Superbeing that Created this Universe?” grasped straw, though there are quite a few atheists out there who support that semantic legerdemain.

When you think about it, what atheists peddle is a gross misrepresentation of reality and lying to the degree that would make the most abusive adds on media blush.

Darwinian Theory true believers (SEE: "Evolutionary" Biologist Dawkins' Book "Blind 🙄 Watch Maker" monument to disingenuous legerdemain) are willing to twist and contort even the fundamental requirement of the Scientific Method to invalidate the "Random Universe" Evolution Hypothesis in ways that cater to entrenched university ivory tower defenders of Evolution to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a children’s party (SEE: irrefutable empirical evidence of several non-random, extremely precise physical constants that determined, before the first atom of hydrogen came into existence, the exact physical constant for the force of gravity, by several THOUSAND places to the RIGHT of the decimal point, that, if greater or lesser, atoms could not even coalesce into existence after the Big Bang).

It is this kind of academic institutionalized acquiescence to atheism based Darwinan ideology that has led many to rightfully conclude that Darwinian "Theory" is an athiest belief system masquerading as a "Scientifc" Theory for the ethically bankrupt purpose of promoting the "might equals right" socially destructive ideology of Social Darwinism.

It’s the SOCIAL DARWINISM, stupid!

Darwinists with advanced degrees in "Evolutionary" Biology, firmly ensconced in their "We Are Scientists" Ivory Towers in Academia for more than a century, have been "self-esteemed" into levels of grandiose narcissism that I suspect is unparalleled in human history. When you try to point out to these scientists that they are unscientifically ignoring those MANY extremely precise physical constants that evidence the fact that, by any Darwinian stretch of the imagination, our universe is not the product of random undirected processes, you might as well be talking to a box of rocks. These militant atheists KNOW EVERYTHING and are absolutely certain of it.

Whenever a Darwinist "Scientist" starts telling you how "ignorant" you are of the "science" of evolution by condescendingly pointing out your "lack" of academic credentials, followed by questioning your ability to reason and, when that don't work, questioning your intelligence, remember this wise old saying:

Never buy something when the seller tells you that you are too dumb to understand the product.

Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert
You are not reading what I am writing, Anthony, so there is very little to reply to since you are putting words on my side that are not the intended message.

I will take the blame. I was not clear enough in my writing.

But do allow me to undermine the word Almighty, because it is a word that cannot be.

All = 1

Mighty = 1st

Never ever can there be anything that is both 1 and 1st at the same time. So, it is a brain fart, just like a teacher wanting his students to all do better on a test than their average result. The construct cannot be and is therefore established by a brain that did not mature in this respect.

God can be Mightiest, of course, and God can even be All. Yet God cannot be All and Mightiest at the same time/in the same construct. We need to have two separate constructs about God to declare both different things.

————

If we start out with God (which is a choice), then we can demand that we make this God real.

To make this God real, we have to desire a real answer to the question How did God do it?

By saying that God created creation from nothing (or: at will), we have two steps to accept based on nothing much, and that undermines the original step that we accepted.

If we want to accept the option to see God as real, we must then next get a real answer and not an additional step of acceptance. The structure is extremely weak with two such steps.

I hope you see that we have to use our brains to get an answer to how God created creation and that we can indeed have a baby in the bathwater, but that we should not drown the baby by adding more bathwater. We have to make God real, structurally real.

———

Saying this in a scientific manner, we have three options from a structural perspective. Two are not possible, but our brains can see all three structures.

1. Everything material that exists now derived from nothing.

2. Everything material that exists now derived from everything that existed prior.

3. Everything material that exists now derived from a part of what existed prior.
Only option 3 is logical. Options #1 and #2 are not possible.

With #1: one cannot have something material come from nothing.

With #2: one cannot end up with a material outcome if that outcome was based on the full set of whatever it was that existed prior. Had that been the case, then this would last a zap (say 15 seconds max), and then quickly return to its original state. A change of 100% is not a stable outcome and will always return to its original state.

Only #3 is available to us. No other structure is structurally possible. A fundamental separation is part of the structure — there is no other option.

Same for God. We can make God real. Yet God’s creation has to be based on parts of God being used for that creation. A separation occurred 13.8 billion years ago among that prior state.

———

Thank you, Anthony, for your reply. I did appreciate it, but it did not address the finer points I hope are more clear now. Apologies therefore that I wasn’t clearer right away.

Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer
Oh, I’m reading it all right, you just refuse to accept that it is logical to include the following option in your list of possible options:

4. Everything material that exists now was created by (not “derived” from) the almighty superbeing (i.e. God) spirit that exists outside of space and time.

I know you cannot accept that because you cannot accept that there is anything more than the material Universe. Thus, it is logical for you to deny the most basic attributes of the Superbeing that created our Universe.

IMHO, your basic premise is flawed, so your conclusions, derived from that flawed premise, are erroneous.

As to your, admittedly erudite, semantics based interpretations of word definitions for the purpose of excluding any adjective describing one of the attributes of God (e.g. Almighty) from rational discussion, see Procrustean Bed.

If you wish to Procrustean Bed your way out of the irrefutable (i.e. empirically measured) science of the physical constants, thousands of places to the right of the decimal point, that evidence the inconvenient fact (for you atheists) that our Universe is not the result of random undirected processes, but an intelligently designed product of a Superbeing that Created it from absolutely nothing material, then you are quite right to assume that further attempts on your part to convince me that your reasoning is “logical” and mine is “illogical” are futile.

Atheists, in the face of hard scientifc evidence to the contrary, firmly believe that Life in our Universe is the product of random undirected processes. Then, adding a second level to their flawed reasoning, they have the audacity to firmly assert that humans, allegedly the product of random undirected processes, can have an ethical worldview. In view of this self serving illogical assertion, their claim that belief in the almighty God is “illogical” is the epitome of irony.

I just ask you to try to remember that billions of humans do their level best to treat other humans as they wish to be treated because of their firm Faith in God. To you, these people are “sadly deluded”. Not only is this presumption unfairly disdaining the reasoning ability of billions of humans, but, for those you convince that belief in God is “illogical”, a dangerous, ethics rejecting, socially destructive worldview.

"if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Human Inequity is directly proportional to Human Iniquity. - A. G. Gelbert


SOURCE:  https://www.quora.com/What-caused-the-Big-Bang-6/answers/74541372?comment_id=304391733&comment_type=2
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Continued from Atheists have no sense of Irony :

Fred-Rick Schermer > Anthony G. Gelbert

Sorry, but you are still not reading my position correctly, Anthony. I will have to declare my position better, and I will try to do this in opposition to what atheists would like reality to be.

Today, God still exists. Yet the situation is such that the original God prior to creation is not the same as the current God.

I hope this quickly takes the hurdle away that you are placing in front of me. Instead of rejecting God, I insist we get a better view on God.

Yes, God is immaterial, and yet God is actually part of our material reality as well.

I hope this will shock you a little, partly because you were not reading my words well. I have to shake you so you are paying attention.

A/ We can start out with God that originally was whole.

B/ We start from 1, and yet today we are not 1 (if we were 1, we would be God). Something occurred: creation.

Today, we have:

1/ The divine immaterial reality

2/ The material reality that was created

It turns out that the material reality that was created is not of one and the same kind. Rather, it is linear in essence with neutrons and protons, and it is non-linear with the electrons.

That describes all matter at the subatomic level.

This means that when discussing realities, there are actually three realities:

1/ the divine

2/ the linear material

3/ the in-between non-linear material (half material/half divine)



Anthony, I know I present a different explanation than either atheists or monotheists.

You need not agree. But from your reply, I see your buttons are pressed about atheists, and that means you did not read my position correctly.

By now, I hope you do. Again, you need not agree with me. But my goal is that you see what I present correctly

Anthony G. Gelbert > Fred-Rick Schermer

That expression, “buttons pushed”, once again shows you lack a sense of irony. And yes, I do continue to insist that you are the one putting up hurdles, not me. Your arbitrary standard (i.e. Procrustean Bed) for the attributes of God is simply a play on words. Yes , my friend, I believe your are a functional atheist, whether you wish to admit it or not. How can I come to that seemingly irrational conclusion when you consistently claim that you are not an atheist? I will explain.

I see nothing in your writing about our debt to God for making the decision to Create us. Aquinas knew what he was talking about when he wrote Aquinas knew what he was talking about when he wrote [As God rules in the world, the "plan of the order of things" preexists in him; in other words, his providence and the exercise of it in his government are what condition as cause everything which comes to pass in the world.] in Summa Theologiae. I see nothing in your writing about the need all humans have to worship God in order to overcome iniquity and have consistently ethical behavior.


All atheists scoff at the very idea that humans must “Fear God”. I see absolutely no inclination on your part to Fear God, so, rather than responding to you because my “buttons were pushed”, I am simply using my critical thinking skills to see where you actually are coming from with this attempt to take a middle road between Atheists and Theists. You are, pardon the metaphor, semantically trying to be “half pregnant”.

Again, all this back and forth is based on your novel definition of “God”. I get it. You want credit for some new thinking about what God “really is”. So, I asked myself, how is the modus vivendi of a person who agrees with your theory different from that of an atheist? I couldn’t find any qualitative or quantitative differences. You are silent as death about good and evil, which is consistent with the atheist amoral worldview. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in your writing that implies, in any way, shape or form, that you believe humans have an immaterial immortal soul (i.e. a spirit, unique to each and every human). Therefore, I can only conclude that you eschew the Theistic tenet that worship of God (i.e. “Fear” = Worship) is sine qua non for human Salvation. IOW, what we have here is functional atheism without the “atheist” label.

I cede the floor to Sir Francis Bacon:

Sir Francis Bacon was critical in the development of the scientific method, and, thus, being a philosophical/scientific giant, atheists have attempted to recruit him as a supporter of unbelief. Again they do so in vain, as Bacon made his religious views quite clear in some of his works, and they are clearly reflective of Christian beliefs. Ironically, he also expressed his disdain for atheism, as shown below.

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man's mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."(Bacon, 64)

“They that deny a God destroy man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” (Bacon, 67)

“It is better to have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy of him: for the one is unbelief the other is contumely; and certainly superstition is the reproach of the Deity.” (Bacon, 68)

Bacon, F. The Essays of Lord Bacon. London: Longman and Green Co., 1875.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2022, 02:37:43 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
A Mousetrap for Darwin 😁
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2022, 02:34:29 pm »
Michael Behe : A Mousetrap for 🦍 Darwin



Discovery Science 180K subscribers

27,960 views  Nov 24, 2020

Biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box, Darwin Devolves, and other books, discusses his new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics with John  West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture, and fields questions from an international audience.

You can get Behe's new book here:
https://www.amazon.com/Mousetrap-Darwin-Michael-Answers-Critics/dp/1936599910/

============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit https://www.discovery.org/id/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
« Last Edit: December 04, 2022, 02:37:08 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
EVOLUTION IS a Religion of Greed, Cruelty and Death based on ATHEISM.
« Reply #39 on: December 10, 2022, 07:23:27 pm »

Darwin's "Theory" of Evolution birthed the Social Darwinist Ideology that has, to the detriment of human society for nearly 150 years now, worked against ethics in human actions.
 
WHY?
 
Because Social Darwinists believe that ethics based principles are 'limitations pretending to be virtues'. To them, ethics are 'feel good illusions' that humans invented to pretend our species has empathy. To Social Darwinists, empathy is irrefutable evidence of inexcusable weakness. To them, all who are guided by ethics are deluded fools that should be eliminated from the human 'apex predator' gene pool for the "good" of our species.

Social Darwinists believe that the dictum, “survival of the fittest” (a term coined not by Charles Darwin but by sociologist Herbert Spencer), means that only the "fittest" should survive. Darwin's book published later ("Descent of Man") made it clear that Darwin completely supported the morally bankrupt views of Spencer.

Enthusiastic converts to Social Darwinism have, to this day, used the language of evolution to frame an understanding of the growing gulf between the rich and the poor, as well as the many differences between cultures all over the world. The explanation they arrived at, and continue to use to justify biosphere trashing profit over people and planet, regardless of any alligator tear filled mendacious claims to the contrary, is that businessmen and others who are economically and socially successful are so because they are biologically and socially “naturally” the fittest. 🙄🤔

Conversely, they reason that the poor are “naturally” weak and unfit and it would be an error to allow the weak of the species to continue to breed. 
       
The ideology of the Social Darwinist is indistinguishable from the despicable ideology of NAZI Germany, clearly exemplified in their brutally enforced morally bankrupt concentration camp law: “Eat your own bread, and if you can, that of your neighbor.”

EVOLUTION IS a Religion of Greed, Cruelty and Death based on ATHEISM.
Quote
"if God doesn't exist, then everything is permitted" -- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Darwin was right to worry that scientifc evidence would be fatal to his "theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection":



The "Theory" of Evolution is, not only unscientifc speculation, but a morally bankrupt atheist belief system that celebrates Death. If you do not agree, then you need to read exactly what Darwin wrote:

Darwinian Theory true believers (SEE: "Evolutionary" Biologist 😈 Dawkins' Book "Blind 🙄 Watch Maker" monument to disingenuous legerdemain) are willing to twist and contort even the fundamental requirement of the Scientific Method to invalidate the "Random Universe" Evolution Hypothesis in ways that cater to entrenched university ivory tower defenders of Evolution to a degree that would rival a toy balloon-dog at a children’s party (SEE: irrefutable empirical evidence of several non-random, extremely precise physical constants that determined, before the first atom of hydrogen came into existence, the exact physical constant for the force of gravity, by several THOUSAND places to the RIGHT of the decimal point, that, if greater or lesser, atoms could not even coalesce into existence after the Big Bang).

It is this kind of academic institutionalized acquiescence to atheism based Darwinan ideology that has led many to rightfully conclude that Darwinian "Theory" is an athiest belief system masquerading as a "Scientifc" Theory for the ethically bankrupt purpose of promoting the "might equals right" socially destructive ideology of Social Darwinism.


Darwinists with advanced degrees in "Evolutionary" Biology, firmly ensconced in their "We Are Scientists" Ivory Towers in Academia for more than a century, have been "self-esteemed" into levels of grandiose narcissism that I suspect is unparalleled in human history. When you try to point out to these scientists that they are unscientifically ignoring those MANY extremely precise physical constants that evidence the fact that, by any Darwinian stretch of the imagination, our universe is not the product of random undirected processes, you might as well be talking to a box of rocks. These militant atheists KNOW EVERYTHING and are absolutely certain of it.

The morally bankrupt ideology championed by Charles Darwin is the culturally corrosive core cause of the calloused behavior, totally devoid of empathy, presently embraced by TPTB and much of the populace, from the scientists who "dutifully" perform agonizingly painful, almost always resulting in maiming or death,
experiments on animals (and people, when they can get away with it) for the "good" of humanity, to the rampant profit over people and planet modus operandi unjustly impoverishing billions of people, condemning them to lives of misery, untreated disease and ignominious death. 🥵

This heinous "Apex Predators have a DARWINIAN RESPONSIBILITY to BE as PREDATORILY EVOLVED (SEE: Steal everything that is not nailed down.) as possible" ATHEIST WORLDVIEW is the socially destructive tsunami now engulfing human society. What all the entrenched insiders among the parasitic, predatory (i.e. Social Darwinist) elites and institutions don't dare admit publicly, though they celebrate that privately, is that to protect themselves from consequence, making the rest of us sacrifice everything else is what they-the-Apex-Predators have a DARWINIAN DUTY to DO. After all, Homo sapiens is "just the result of random undirected processes", so the more you can "enlightened self interest" DO to get MORE POWER by causing, directly or indirectly, the death of human competitors for the species gene pool high ground, "the better".


This is how America works now: in-your-face corruption is not just accepted, it's glorified.

Let's score America's wealth and power elites, regardless of party or political persuasion:
Integrity: zero.
Austerity: zero.
Restraint: zero.
Humility: zero.
Responsibility: zero.
Accountability: zero.
Sacrifice for the common good: zero.
Thrift: zero.

ALL the above scores are perfectly descriptive of the Social Darwinist modus operandi/vivendi

Frugality and prudence, once accepted by all human cultures as sine qua non, has given way to massive excess by TPTB (and too many of the, brainwashed by the "education system", non-rich populace) and a level of craziness in culture ethical humans never imagined they would experience.

A society whose elites, BECAUSE of their TOTAL embrace of the morally bankrupt SOCIAL DARWINIST IDEOLOGY, are so self-serving, corrupt, unaccountable and devoid of any sense of good and evil is doomed. It REALLY IS the Social Darwinism, stupid!   

Whenever a Darwinist "Scientist" starts telling you how "ignorant" you are of the "science" of evolution by condescendingly pointing out your "lack" of academic credentials, followed by questioning your ability to reason and, when that don't work, questioning your intelligence, remember this wise old saying:   
Never buy something when the seller tells you that you are too dumb to understand the product.

Until ethics based people in general, and those on the LEFT in particular, face the fact that Darwin's, disguised as "science", atheist ideology needs to be completely eliminated from all textbooks in absolutely every field of human endeavor, from Biology to Medicine to Social Science to Economics, and so on, taught in our schools, from pre-school (yes, it is THERE RIGHT NOW TOO! The brainwashing starts EARLY.) to advanced university degrees, things will get worse.

Quote
“Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” James Baldwin ✨
Quote
"Do they not err that devise evil? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good." -- Proverbs 14:22
« Last Edit: December 10, 2022, 10:15:29 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Continued from EVOLUTION IS a Religion of Greed, Cruelty and Death based on ATHEISM.:

Gary Walker > Sober Thinking
So much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.
Argument from consequence fallacy.

Sober Thinking > Gary Walker
So, WHY do you deny the SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE?
Yup, you certainly DO NOT know where to start. Enjoy your Atheist Belief system PROCRUSTEAN BED. 
Quote
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

Gary Walker > Sober Thinking
I do not deny any scientific evidence.
The argument from consequences that you make has NO effect on the validity of the Theory of Evolution.

Sober Thinking > Gary Walker
You said, "I do not deny any scientific evidence.
The argument from consequences that you make has NO effect on the validity of the Theory of Evolution." 🤔

Your position is, correct me if I am misinterpreting what you just wrote, that you are willing to consider scientific evidence based arguments that question the validity of Theory of Evolution, but consider Social Darwinism's ethically bankrupt, society damaging influence a consequence not relevant to said validity. 

I agree that the damage to human society caused by Social Darwinism is a separate subject from the scientific evidence based validation, or invalidation, of the Theory of Evolution.

That is why I did not limit my comment to consequences. The physical constants that precisely determined, before the first atom came into existence, the force of gravity that would enable even atoms to form and then to coalesce into molecules (and so on - no atoms, no stars, no planets, no possibility of life, etc. you get the idea) I mentioned are irrefutable scientifc evidence that our Universe was created, not formed from random undirected processes.
 
I consider it irrational (i.e denying scientific evidence) to ignore those physical constants (I'll list several of them here for you if you wish to check them out, one by one) based on your view that the Darwin's biological "natural selection" premise of the Theory of Evolution is "not related" to the origin of the Universe. WHY? Because both categories address the core issue of random (no Superbeing Designer- the Universe and all life in it resulted from random undirected processes) versus non-random (a Superbeing Designer that created the Universe and Providentially created all life in it) origins.

For that reason , I didn't get into the biological arguments invalidating the Theory of Evolution. If you are sincere about not questioning scientific evidence invalidating the Theory of Evolution, then you will be interested in reading the following statements from these eminently credentialed scientists:
 
PROFESSOR COLIN REEVES, Coventry University

Darwinism was an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit biological facts. However, what we have learned since the days of Darwin throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its favour.

Professor Colin Reeves
Dept of Mathematical Sciences
Coventry University
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/22/professor_colin_reeves_coventr/


EDWARD PELTZER, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get.

Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/09/02/edward_peltzer_university_of_c/

CHRIS WILLIAMS, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University

As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require — or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection?

Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
https://dissentfromdarwin.org/2008/08/11/chris_williams_phd_biochemistr/

Gary, are you aware that all those Icons of Evolution we all were told were "scientific evidence" (most STILL in biology textbooks from grade school to university level!) are either fanciful speculation or disingenuously mendacious fabrications? I hope you don't still believe this pro-evolution propaganda that has been scientifically proven to be false DECADES ago.
     

The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. -- Proverbs 14:15
« Last Edit: December 12, 2022, 02:30:13 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
Continued from
"I do not deny any scientific evidence. The argument from consequences that you make has NO effect on the validity of the Theory of Evolution."
:

Gary Walker > Sober Thinking
Sorry but when over 99% of working biologists accept the Theory of Evolution as valid, I will follow that consensus.

There is no "pro-evolution propaganda that has been scientifically proven to be false DECADES ago. ", THAT is a creationist lie and science denial.

You are NOT thinking sober, you are cherry picking your "experts" to fit your conclusion. That is confirmation bias.

Before you can assert "god did it", you must provide evidence that your god is real and good luck with that.

Sober Thinking > Gary Walker
It certainly is a sorry state when you refuse to even look at the evidence. The "cherry picking" of experts is your straw man argument. Those experts I cited gave EVIDENCE, not "opinions". I listed their credentials so you could take them seriously as scientists in order to objectively consider the FACTS, not their opinions. You just refuse to look at the evidence objectively.

You criticized me for using an "argument from consequences", and then you use the fallacious debating technique of "argument from authority".

Also, the only one using Confirmation Bias here is YOU when you use "99% of working biologists. (i.e. 'Darwinism is the explanation that almost the entire world believes, so it's gotta be true.'...) as your "proof" of Darwin's Theory INSTEAD of scientific evidence.

Evolutionists argue that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. Criticism of evolution draws heated responses, and personal attacks are common.

Such attacks, however, do not change the FACT that evolution has generated many false predictions. Also, evolutionists sometimes IGNORE or DENY the unexpected findings. They attempt to DISCREDIT the FACTS, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies WITHOUT FOLLOWING UP such CRITICISMS WITH SUPPORTING DETAILS.

You refuse to address the blatant falsehoods pushed in the conclusions of Miller-Urey experment (STILL in most Biology textbooks those 99% of working biologist true believers in Darwin's Atheist Gospel eat up), and all the other Scientifc Evidence I have mentioned, based on a type of confirmation bias known as the Backfire Effect. The tendency to seek confirming evidence over contrary evidence is known as confirmation bias.
One consequence of confirmation bias can be that confirming evidence is viewed as correct and typical whereas disconfirming evidence is viewed as anomalous and rare. Not surprisingly the confirming evidence is more often retained and documented. RARELY are the many false predictions found in evolution texts.

Confirmation bias can hinder scientific research as evolutionists tend to view the predictions of evolution as overwhelmingly true. Evolutionists argue, based on confirmation bias, NOT scientifc evidence, that evolution is a fact, and that we ought to focus on evolution’s successful predictions rather than its false predictions. False predictions, on the other hand, are usually not viewed as legitimate falsifications but rather as open 😉research questions which are yet to be resolved. Indeed, evolutionists often make the remarkable claim, like you continue to make, that there is no evidence that is contrary to evolution.

Gary Walker, school is out. You refuse to answer the question about the physical constants that provide scientific evidence that our Universe is not the result of random undirected processes. You arm wave with distractions to change the subject to the "amenable" Darwinian weeds in order to avoid addressing the intellectual bankruptcy of the "Random Universe" Core Evolution Theory Claim.

You make the breathtakingly illogical claim that I have to prove the existence of God in order for you to believe the Scientifc Evidence that invalidates the "Theory" of Evolution. Hey, if you want to be an Atheist, that's your problem, but in this debate we are supposed to be talking about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, not whether God exists or not. Yes, it is logical to conclude there is a Superbeing outside of time and space that designed and created the one, and ONLY, Universe, but the subject matter in this debate is whether or not the "Theory" of Evolution has any SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to back it. It doesn't. If it did, I would be the first to accept it. There are many good people out there that believe in God that have no issues with Darwin's "Theory". As a Catholic Priest who believed in evolution told me when I began to question it told me, "God could have done it any way He wanted!". True, but the Scientific Evidence does not support the Theistic Evolution worldview either.       

To you, the tooth fairy and "God" are in the list of things you do not believe in. Here is a partial list of things I do not believe in: I do not believe in Astrology, the tooth fairy, the fairy god mother and the Darwinist "Directed Panspermia" ID LOONEY TOONS that you and fellow atheists think is a "plausible alternative", despite irrefutable scientific EVIDENCE that our Universe is NON-RANDOM.

I believe ALL humans are basically NOT intrinsically ethical, though ALL humans who are not mentally retarded know the difference between good and evil. I believe we are ALL basically lovers of self. THAT is the reason humans DO EVIL. THAT (SEE: Fallen Nature) is the reason we ALL need a Savior. I believe that Jesus Christ bought my Salvation with His Death on the Cross. He is my Lord and Savior.

I believe ONLY humans who WALK the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." TALK are Christians. ALL Religious Hypocrites that DO NOT WALK THE TALK are ANTI-Christians.

Faithfully following the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE is not "situational ethics optional" for a Christian.

I believe there is more hope for atheists who do their ethical best to live by the Golden Rule than for Anti-Christians who pretend to do so. God is not mocked.

👉 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." Galatians 6:7-8 ✨

Gary Walker, you do not wish to reason; you unreasonably cling to your Darwinian belief system in the face of irrefutable scientific evidence to the contrary. I will pray that, before you die, God will Enlighten your darkness. I was an atheist from the age of 18 to the age of 28, when I could no longer pretend that the Universe is the result of random undirected processes.

I was a hard case. If God could 🕊 convince greedy, adulterous, Republican moron me of the TRUTH, I am certain He can 🕊 reach you.

For those who want to pursue the subject of whether or not Evolution Theory is reality based, the following posts wilI be of service.

🕯️ Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. …
📢 I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.
"Darwin admitted that if no such links were discovered, then his theory would be incorrect."
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg613/?topicseen#msg613

🕯️ June 2018 👉 I will not debate this subject with you as long as you flat refuse to address irrefutable points like the TIME it would ACTUALLY TAKE to "evolve" a simple bacterium like Escherichia coli or any of these other points:
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg614/#msg614

🕯️ These scholarly references are important to credible debate: "Many scientists doubt evolution, but they are not cited or quoted in this paper. Only material from evolutionists is used to illustrate that even adherents to the theory agree that the predictions are false."
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg615/#msg615

🕯️ "It is not controversial that a great many predictions made by Darwin’s theory of evolution have been found to be false. There is less consensus, however, on how to interpret these falsifications. In logic, when a hypothesis predicts or entails an observation that is discovered to be false, then the hypothesis is concluded to be false. Not so in science.

When a scientific theory makes a prediction that is discovered to be false, then sometimes the theory is simply modified to accommodate the new finding. Broad, umbrella theories, such as evolution, are particularly amenable to 😉 adjustments." Read more:

Why investigate evolution’s false predictions?
https://soberthinking.createaforum.com/sound-christian-doctrine/darwin/msg616/#msg616


Agelbert closing NOTE: Gary Walker went full Ad hominem after the above post, true to the Backfire Effect. The graphics are mine ;D

Gary Walker > Sober Thinking
Every Scientific Organization supports the Theory of Evolution.

The Scientific conensus is that the Theory of Evolution is a valid explanation of our biological origin.

Don't bother posting novels like this, I am not going to read this bullshit, it is a waste of my time.
This was my last reply to him:

Sober Thinking > Gary Walker
Ad hominem is a fallacious debating technique. Try Science and logic for a change. I have reported your post.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2022, 03:11:59 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking


November 30, 2022, 2:04 PM By Brian Miller 🕊️

Attempts to Reconcile 🦍 Evolutionary Theory with ☝🏻 Christianity Lead to Intractable Tensions


SNIPPET:

Christians no longer need to accept a secular intellectual captivity. They can again embrace a historical understanding of Christianity that coherently unifies faith with science and provides a strong foundation to defend Christian ethical teaching.

Full article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/attempts-to-reconcile-evolutionary-theory-with-christianity-lead-to-intractable-tensions/

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: ~ Romans 1:19-20
« Last Edit: December 19, 2022, 03:18:15 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
The Mother of All Chicken & Egg Problems 👨‍🔬
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2022, 03:53:13 pm »
The Mother of All Chicken & Egg Problems 👨‍🔬 (Your ☝🏻 Designed Body)


Discovery Science 180K subscribers


5,521 views  Nov 29, 2022

Engineer Steve Laufmann discusses "the mother of all chicken and egg problems" that can be found in the human body. Laufmann is co-author of the book Your Designed Body:  https://www.YourDesignedBody.com

Every day, your body must solve hundreds of hard engineering problems simultaneously, or else you’ll die. In the book, Your Designed Body, systems engineer Steve Laufmann and physician Howard Glicksman explore this extraordinary system of thousands of ingenious and interdependent engineering solutions that impact your heart, your lungs, your feet, your eyes and ears, and more.

Praise of Your Designed Body
Quote
“A masterful synthesis of modern medicine and engineering.”—Stephen C. Meyer, PhD, author of Return of the God Hypothesis
Quote
“Captivating… a magnificent and much-needed accomplishment—the indispensable book on the intelligent design of the human body.”—Michael Egnor, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook
Quote
“A brilliant tour of the mind-boggling interactive complexity of the human body.”—William S. Harris, PhD, Professor of Internal Medicine, Sanford School of Medicine, University of South Dakota
Quote
“I particularly enjoyed the way the authors tackled claims about ‘botched design.’”—David Galloway, MD, former President, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow

About the Authors
Steve Laufmann is a computer scientist and consultant in the engineering of enterprise-class computer systems. Dr. Howard Glicksman is a general practitioner with more than forty years of medical experience in office and hospital settings.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2022, 03:57:02 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3278
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • SoberThinking
The Mandelbrot Set: Atheists’ WORST Nightmare
« Reply #44 on: December 26, 2022, 06:46:14 pm »
The Mandelbrot ☝🏻 Set: Atheists’ WORST Nightmare


307,754 views  Dec 16, 2022

In this powerful lecture, Dr. Jason Lisle 🕊️  reveals a secret code seen throughout creation: the Mandelbrot set. Why is the Mandelbrot set atheists’ worst nightmare? Because it reveals the infinite, intelligent mind of God in ways that you’ve probably never seen before.

You can watch the original full-length talk here:

Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world:
https://AnswersinGenesis.org/give
« Last Edit: December 26, 2022, 06:49:21 pm by AGelbert »
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12