|
|
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
coram_deo 02-Aug-21, 17:15 |
 The latest attempt to show that 'Darwinism' is wildly improbable has been posted. This makes the same fundamental mistake as I pointed out in an earlier post; it assumes that every DNA sequence is a 'de novo' attempt to string together the 'right' nucleotides. It is unfortunate that Coram parrots these statistics without understanding the assumptions behind them. Coram is shadow-boxing here. NOBODY proposes that evolution works this way. The only thing his absurd probabilities prove is that evolutionists are right! Evolution works by the accumulation of small steps, not in one gigantically unlikely leap. Yet he draws exactly the opposite conclusion, because he doesn't understand the theory he is supposedly demolishing. Coram, before you tell someone that his ideas are 'garbage', you would do well to find out what those ideas are. Einstein understood Newtonian physics, and the leading 16th-century Reformers were all Doctors of Theology fully educated and skilled in Catholic doctrine. Similarly, the generally religious, church-going Establishment scientists in the 18th century flocked to Darwin's theories because they saw it solving otherwise intractable problems with the older models involving direct divine intervention. Evolution didn't solve every problem, and Darwin was the first to admit that; but it made those problems solvable. In the 160 years since, many of those problems have been solved while posing new problems. That's what Science is about; solving problems in the top layer so you can get at the problems underneath. The only way any system can be fully resolved is for it to be self-referential, and any competent theologian will tell you that any complete system that includes God is by definition beyond human comprehension. If any theological OR SCIENTIFIC stance claims to be 'complete' and to answer every question, then it is a lie. In the meantime you would do well to understand the theory that you are so sure is 'wrong'. It might give you a bit more credibility. It would most certainly give you a weapon that wouldn't crumble into dust as soon as it was exposed to daylight.>> Your argument isn’t with me. It’s with David Gelernter, a Yale professor, and Douglas Axe, a distinguished biologist who was a graduate student at Caltech before joining the Centre for Protein Engineering at Cambridge. I realize it’s to your advantage to claim their assertions are my own because it’s easier for you to cast doubt on the assertions. But it’s very disingenuous. As I stated on the posts you referenced, a rebuttal to Professor Gelernter’s article exists, which I’ll be posting, along with a rebuttal to that rebuttal, after I finish posting Professor Gelernter’s article. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Aug-21, 18:51 |
No, they’re only writing them and allowing them to be published. <<YOU are. My argument is with YOU because YOU don't understand what you are talking about.>> You forgot to capitalize the final “you.” First, I have no idea why you’re getting so worked up. I am quoting from an article (“Giving Up Darwin”) by David Gelernter, a Yale professor who cited work done by distinguished biologist Douglas Axe, and I’m quoting the article verbatim - in its entirety from top to bottom. I’m taking nothing out of context. If you disagree with the assertions in that article, you’re disagreeing with Professor Gelernter and Dr. Axe. I didn’t write the article and I didn’t do the genetic studies. <<Were your referees posting, we could expect a learned response to any objections; but this way they can't make any clarifications or explanations.>> As I stated, a rebuttal article to Professor Gelernter’s article exists, which cites your objection, and a rebuttal to that rebuttal also exists which responds to your objection. I want to finish posting Professor Gelernter’s article before I get to reactions to it. <<Instead, you are effectively hi-jacking their expertise, but putting your own context around their words.>> I’m quoting Professor Gelernter’s article verbatim and leaving nothing our nor putting anything in. I think the title of his article (“Giving Up Darwin”) alone should lead you to a conclusion of whether he thinks Darwin’s theory is credible. I’m not hijacking anything - I’m posting an article verbatim and crediting the author of that article and providing a link. <<That is not acceptable practice in science.>> Oh good grief, Bob. Scientists cite each other’s work all the time. That statement is nonsense. <<What you post here is YOUR thesis,>> Yes, my thesis is in the title of that thread (“Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage”) and I’m providing reasons in that thread for why my thesis is correct. <<regardless of what others might say.>> Huh? When someone presents, say, a research paper, he or she doesn’t cite other people’s work? Ever hear of footnotes? It’s done all the time. <<So defend YOUR thesis instead of hiding behind more learned me who don't even know they are being used as shields.>> I’ll get to the criticisms of Professor Gelernter’s article and the responses to those criticisms after I finish posting his article. In the meantime, I suggest you listen to one of those rainfall recordings on YouTube. Your blood pressure must be through the roof. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 02-Aug-21, 20:13 |
Okey doke. <<<First, I have no idea why you’re getting so worked up.>>> <<You're quite right. You have no idea why I'm 'getting worked up'. Perhaps I should explain.>> Ok. <<I am annoyed because you are doing everything in your power to link the Christian faith with intellectual dishonesty.>> That statement is absolutely false, but I’ve come to expect that from you, Bob. Bearing false witness seems to be a habit with you and is hardly a sign of the “mature faith” you claim to possess. <<You are quoting very selectively and out-of-context, and then providing a false or incomplete context.>> As I said, I’m quoting articles word-for-word and providing links to the source articles. How that represents “out of context” and “incomplete context” is beyond me. <<This is transparently dishonest to anyone who understands the subject.>> So quoting verbatim from articles written by more learned men than you or I who have determined the theory of evolution is no longer credible is “transparently dishonest?” I suggest you’re the one being dishonest, Bob. But I understand why you want to shift the focus onto me - it’s the “shoot the messenger” strategy (a variation on attacking a source as not credible) which is a debate strategy of last resort (along with name calling) for desperate people. <<Sure, there are many people out there with degrees whom you can quote with approval. There are literally millions of qualified people in the world now, and there will naturally be some who would like to use the prestige of science to promote unscientific viewpoints; but what assumptions underlie their quotes?>> Uh, how about looking objectively at whether the theory of evolution, formulated more than 150 years ago, is still a valid theory to explain the complexity of life we see today? More and more people are realizing it isn’t and the theory is on its last legs, despite the cries of terror from people for whom the theory has become a religion and indispensable part of their worldview. <<You are giving everyone who wants to discredit the Faith all the ammunition they could ask for.>> So one has to accept the theory of evolution to be a Christian? I think you should let the theory of evolution be examined and critiqued on its own without dragging religion and the supernatural into it. The theory is either true or it’s not. And the evidence says it’s not. But a lot of that evidence wasn’t available in Darwin’s day. <<This intellectual dishonesty is not just that you happen to reject Evolution. I have several friends who do that, and we still meet together, pray together, support each other through our hard times as we have for decades now.>> It’s nice to hear they put up with you (lol) <<An honest rejection is fair enough. But that is a far cry from what you are doing.>> I’m citing objections to the theory by quoting verbatim from articles and providing links. Why that upsets you so much is beyond me. I’m not taking anything out of context and I think it’s absolutely possible to be a Christian and reject the theory of evolution. <<What annoys me is that you are bringing fake arguments to the table while pretending to champion the Faith.>> What fake arguments? Your dishonesty and trolling are now firing on all cylinders. <<You are linking the Faith to obscurantism, to misrepresentation, to wilful refusal to acknowledge available data, to dodging or ignoring (deliberately?) any objections put to you.>> The first part of that sentence is not only blatantly false, it’s not even worth responding to. As to your claim I’m dodging objections, I created this thread to respond to them. <<Even when you appear to respond, you play the politician's game of responding to a question that is subtly different from that being asked.>> Huh? Have an example for anything you’re claiming? As I said earlier, I realize why you and other evolutionists like to engage in ad hominem attacks whenever anyone dares to question Darwin’s theory. It’s become a religion to a lot of people and an indispensable part of their worldview. That’s why so few scientists dare to critique it - they don’t want themselves and their professional reputations to be attacked and sullied. <<But the biggest evasion is also the longest-standing. You still have not answered the question I put to you at the very beginning. What scientific model do you support instead of the current broad scientific consensus that existing life arose through a process generally described as 'evolution'?>> As I said before (many times,) the theory of evolution should stand or fall on its own. Why you constantly want to distract from it by attacking me with false characterizations and by trying to interject religion and the supernatural into the argument are just signs of how weak and lacking in credibility Darwin’s theory has become. <<Until you can put a better explanation on the table, any intelligent person will stick, however tentatively, with the best available explanation, however imperfect.>> What happened to simply saying, “I don’t know?” You think people should believe in a bogus theory than admit they don’t know how to account for the complexity of life? Darwin’s theory can explain changes within a species, but as a theory to explain one species turning into another species and the complexity of life we see today, it’s a total and complete fail. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 07:23 |
To love the Holy Bible *is* to love God because the Bible is all about God, is His message to mankind and was written under the guidance, inspiration and control of His Holy Spirit. Consider these excerpts from got questions.org: “The Bible’s unity is due to the fact that, ultimately, it has one Author—God Himself. The Bible is “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). The human authors wrote exactly what God wanted them to write, and the result was the perfect and holy Word of God (Psalm 12:6; 2 Peter 1:21).” “Jesus is the central character in the Bible—the whole book is really about Him. The Old Testament predicts His coming and sets the stage for His entrance into the world. The New Testament describes His coming and His work to bring salvation to our sinful world. Jesus is more than a historical figure; in fact, He is more than a man. He is God in the flesh, and His coming was the most important event in the history of the world. God Himself became a man in order to give us a clear, understandable picture of who He is. What is God like? He is like Jesus; Jesus is God in human form (John 1:14, 14:9).” www.gotquestions.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 08:41 |
Actually, that’s not the most recent post, as you undoubtedly know, but this is yet another example of your bearing false witness. The most recent post pretty well encapsulates why Darwin’s theory has become a religion. There’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for one species turning into another species through evolution. Check the real last post in the thread, “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage.” <<is the Big Reveal.>> I said I was a creationist long ago. I simply didn’t want to mix the theory of evolution with creationism. The theory of evolution, as a means of explaining the complexity of life, should stand or fall on its own. And, in my view, it’s fallen after any objective assessment. The only things that have held it up - lack of scrutiny, vague generalities and attacking anyone who questions it - are collapsing due to the work of real scientists (i.e. those who don’t blindly accept it and think it shouldn’t be scrutinized.) <<As I expected, it is a version of the theory usually called 'Intelligent Design'. This is a sub-category of 'Creationism'. >> I believe in creationism. Your habit of attributing David Gelernter’s opinions to me is just another example of your bearing false witness. <<As Gelernter himself concedes, Intelligent Design leaves unanswered questions just as much as Evolution.>> I don’t agree with Gelernter here. <<The big difference is that while both are legitimate in terms of Philosophy, Science imposes specific requirements in addition to philosophical constraints.>> Yes, and too bad the theory of evolution, as a way to explain the complexity of life, fails to meet those specific requirements. <<Science demands that any theory should provide physical evidence.>> Maybe one day the theory of evolution, as a means of explaining the complexity of life, will do that. But I doubt it and am not holding my breath. The more science advances, the more it *disproves* evolution’s claim to explain the complexity of life. Ultimately, science is the theory’s greatest enemy. <<Not necessarily complete evidence to meet every conceivable question,>> How about any evidence to meet the most basic questions? <<but sufficient to provide objective plausibility.>> And evidence that the theory of evolution is a plausible explanation for the complexity of life is nowhere to be found. <<It should also be testable. That means, that it should imply some test 'a priori' that could disprove it.>> And what is the test that could disprove the theory of evolution’s claim that one species turns into an entirely separate species through random mutations and natural selection, otherwise known as blind chance? <<Intelligent Design meets neither of these criteria.>> Ditto for the theory of evolution as a means of explaining the complexity of life. There’s more evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is for one species turning into another species through evolution. See the thread “15 Logical Reasons to Believe the Resurrection” and statements from experts in evaluating evidence who investigated evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and concluded the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was true. <<It does not provide any guidance that says 'If Intelligent design is true, then this experiment or observation will show THIS result'.>> Ditto for the theory of evolution as a way to explain one species turning into another species and the complexity of life. <<In practice, Intelligent Design can 'adopt' any conceivable experimental or observational result, and therefore is not falsifiable.>> Just like Darwin’s theory! “Cambrian explosion? Why evolution speeded up for a while!” “Most mutations are harmful and the astronomical odds of evolution being at all plausible on the genetic level? Millions of years!” You guys said it yourselves - any discovery that seems to contradict the theory of evolution - like the Cambrian explosion - doesn’t mean the theory is false. It just means it has to be modified. <<Any physical evidence can be interpreted 'post hoc' as being at least neutral.>> You’re describing the theory of evolution here, right? <<Therefore, Intelligent Design might be philosophically valid but it is not scientifically valid.>> And the theory of evolution is neither philosophically nor scientifically valid. <<Like my friend who believes the Earth was created only several thousand years ago but with the appearance of being billions of years old, Intelligent Design might conceivably be 'true' in the historical sense, but places itself outside Science.>> And advances in science have turned the theory of evolution into a religion. Where do you guys meet for services? At Darwin’s grave? Is “On the Origin of Species” your Bible? What do you use for hymns? Bird calls and ducks quacking? <<So I sincerely thank Coram for finally putting his proposal on the table.>> Since you know that’s not my proposal - it’s Gelernter’s - this is just another example of your bearing false witness. And your use of the word “sincerely” shows just how shameless you are in doing it. <<It is a legitimate position for him or anyone else to take.>> I’m an old earth creationist. <<But it is not Science.>> And neither is the theory of evolution as a means of explaining the complexity of life. <<That's not to say it's wrong. But it is equivalent to saying 'God holds it up' is not Structural Engineering.>> Actually, God holds everything up <<It might well be true, but it's not within the 'Rules of the Game'.>> And the theory of evolution is not within the “Rules of the Game” either, at least not when it’s used as an explanation for the complexity of life. <<I have been an expert witness in several court cases involving structural engineering,>> Did you shamelessly bear false witness in those cases too? Or do you just do that on the Internet? <<and if I have ever answered any question with 'because God decreed that should happen', then I would not have been considered a useful witness.>> How ‘bout if you said evidence exists for something when it doesn’t and, when you were asked to provide that evidence, you stared off into space. Would you be a useful witness then? ‘Cause there ain’t no evidence for the theory of evolution changing one species into another species, but there *is* evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. <<Again, thanks to you Coram for putting your preferred answer on the table.>> More of your shameless lying. <<But I would ask of you that you do not pretend that it is something that it is not.>> Talk about psychological projection! <<If you want to put forward discussions like this, then PLEASE do not do so in a way that invokes the Bible in the debate.>> I’ve always said the theory of evolution should stand or fall on its own. You’ve been the one trying to interject religion into the discussion because Darwin’s rheory, as a way to explain the complexity of life, is so weak - and becomes weaker and weaker the more science advances. <<Let theology be debated as theology, and science as science. Different disciplines have different rules.>> We agree! <<Scientists involving themselves in matters of faith should obey the rules of theology, and the faithful involving themselves in science should obey the rules of science.>> That’s exactly what I’ve been doing when it comes to the theory of evolution. <<May your faith increase, and your understanding deepen daily!>> Great trolling, Bob! You’ll get that moderator’s position at FIAT FLUX III yet 👍👍 |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 08:53 |
To quote Professor David Gelernter from his essay on the theory of evolution: “Once it was a daring guess. Today it is basic to the credo that defines the modern worldview. Accepting the theory as settled truth—no more subject to debate than the earth being round or the sky blue or force being mass times acceleration—certifies that you are devoutly orthodox in your scientific views; which in turn is an essential first step towards being taken seriously in any part of modern intellectual life.” “The religion is all on the other side. Meyer and other proponents of I.D. are the dispassionate intellectuals making orderly scientific arguments. Some I.D.-haters have shown themselves willing to use any argument—fair or not, true or not, ad hominem or not—to keep this dangerous idea locked in a box forever. They remind us of the extent to which Darwinism is no longer just a scientific theory but the basis of a worldview, and an emergency replacement religion for the many troubled souls who need one.” claremontreviewofbooks.com |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 09:09 |
As the earlier thread with this name is full and was very active, I thought it worth the while to continue. The thread is a major response channel to claims made in the new GK club with this name.>> Yes, why not continue your trolling thread? Why in less than a month, your club members wrote 300 posts about this club - that’s nearly identical to the total number of posts I made in this club and the majority of my posts have been about the Holy Bible. And the total number of posts in your club over the last month is 672, which means I’m responsible for 45 percent of them! What would your club do without me?! I guess writing 300+ posts in a month in response to a single thread on here (“Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage”) shows just how upset atheists get when their religion is questioned. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 10:58 |
It’s interesting that you characterize questions and criticisms of the theory of evolution as an “attack.” Tell me again that the theory has not become a religion for atheists. What other scientific theory would lead you to use the word “attack” when someone questions or criticizes it? And yes, I’m being generous in calling the theory of evolution a scientific theory. I only do so because I think it’s credible as a way of explaining changes within a species, otherwise known as micro-evolution, but is totally deficient in explaining one species changing into an entirely separate species, otherwise known as macroevolution. <<The most recent attack in WLTHB club against 'evolution' quotes some highly cited scientists.>> Again with the word “attack?” And by “highly cited” don’t you mean “highly credible”? <<One aspect forgotten is that for each highly cited scientist with such an opinion there will be at least one hundred highly cited scientists who disagree with such an opinion.>> Read further down the most recent post in the thread “Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage” for why that is. Here’s an excerpt: “Given the massive uncertainty about the ‘how’ of macroevolution among scientists working in the field, you might think that a wide variety of views would be tolerated in the scientific arena – including the view that there is no such process as macroevolution. However, you would be sadly mistaken. As Professor Tour notes in his online article on evolution and creation, an alarming academic trend has emerged in recent years: a growing intolerance of dissent from Darwinism. This trend is so pronounced that Professor Tour now advises his students not to voice their doubts about Darwinism in public, if they want a successful career: In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… But my recent advice to my graduate students has been direct and revealing: If you disagree with Darwinian Theory, keep it to yourselves if you value your careers, unless, of course, you’re one of those champions for proclamation; I know that that fire exists in some, so be ready for lead-ridden limbs. But if the scientific community has taken these shots at senior faculty, it will not be comfortable for the young non-conformist. When the power-holders permit no contrary discussion, can a vibrant academy be maintained? Is there a University (unity in diversity)? For the United States, I pray that the scientific community and the National Academy in particular will investigate the disenfranchisement that is manifest upon some of their own, and thereby address the inequity. “ <<More important, the cited arguments almost exclusively concern abiogenesis (i.e. the beginning of life). This is indeed an area of many question marks (and a few hypotheses), but it is not part of the theory of evolution.>> I don’t believe that’s an accurate representation at all. <<Evolution theory is also mentioned, and the only objection here is the by now typical refusal to understand what creationists call 'macroevolution'. So-called 'microevolution' is easily understood. Usually, macroevolution is defined as a change of one living being to become another quite different one. A change of species.>> Right. <<Yet, there is both genetic and fossil evidence for this, one example being the evolution of whales and hippos from a common ancestor.>> I will post a link showing that this claim is not undisputed. <<It is noteworthy that nobody of these 'highly cited scientists' used disagreement with the 2nd Law any longer.>> Must that be mentioned in every article that objects to the theory of evolution? I can assure you that’s not “settled science.” But, even if it were, that’s far from the only problem with the theory of evolution. <<www.rom.on.ca>> answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 14:11 |
The theory of evolution can explain changes within a species - not one species turning into an entirely separate species. To quote the start of the “Debunking Evolution” article: “ ‘Evolution’ mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. People are shown the real part, which makes them ready to believe the imaginary part. That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.” “The invention of new parts or systems by mutation has never been witnessed, nor has it been accomplished in a biochemistry laboratory. As Franklin Harold, retired professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Colorado State University, wrote in his 2001 book ‘The Way of the Cell’ published by Oxford University Press, ‘There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biological or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’ Evolutionists often say ‘it evolved’, but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.” <<It is the combination of this knowledge and these observations that has led to the theory.>> You’re taking evidence of microevolution (changes within a species) and using it to support macroevolution (one species turning into an entirely separate species.) Those are two very different things. <<This does not mean that all of evolution would be 'solved'! There are still some details of the process that have remained enigmatic.>> Details? Like the Cambrian explosion? Orphan genes? The impossible odds of necessary genetic changes occurring by blind chance? The fact that mutations are almost always harmful to a species and rarely beneficial? The fact mutations that would have to occur early enough to guide development of a new species are always fatal to the potential new species? Yes, those and many other problems with the theory are mere “details.” <<However, they are not outside a reasonable explanation (reasnable hypotheses), and further work will likely solve the remaining uncertainties.>> Further work by genuine scientists and advancements in science will finally throw Darwin’s theory on the rubbish heap where it belongs - at least as a way to explain macroevolution and the complexity of life. <<It is clear, on the other hand, that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith.>> Really? “All?” Every single person who has serious criticisms against Darwinian evolution has strong religious faith? I’d love to see a citation for that but doubt I’ll receive one because you just made that up out of thin air. It’s precisely this sloppy generalizing and faulty conclusion reaching that has allowed Darwin’s theory to survive as long as it has. I can cite one prominent critic of Darwinian evolution who refutes your “all” statement off the top of my head - David Berlinski, who describes himself as a “secular Jew” and who has written several books that are highly critical and skeptical of Darwin’s theory. <<This is quite irrespective of whether the criticizer is a well-cited scientist or not. The driving force for the criticism is thus religious faith, not science!>> So you extrapolate this false conclusion from your prior false statement. <<Even though it is disguised as scientific argumentation. All this entails is exaggerated attacks against the parts of evolution theory that are still somewhat enigmatic.>> Evidence for the hypothesis that evolution can cause one species to turn into another species and can account for the complexity of life is not only “enigmatic,” it’s practically non-existent. And what little evidence there is, is in dispute. You’re again using evidence for microevolution and extrapolating it to macroevolution. <<Exaggerated in the sense that the attackers want to throw out the baby with the bath water.>> The more science advances, the less credible Darwin’s theory becomes. Not that it was ever more than conjecture and wishful thinking when it comes to an explanation for the complexity of life, but the more science advances, the less willing real scientists will be (and are!) to accept the vague generalities and dogma that have propped it up for so long. <<Part of the driving force -the claim that evolution is 'the religion of atheists' - is especially unfortunate in my opinion because, actually, the Darwinian theory of evolution does in no way exclude the Christian faith, nor the existence of divinity in general.>> I think it’s impossible to reconcile the theory of evolution with the creation account in Genesis, no matter how symbolic you want to make the latter. But that’s not why I think the theory of evolution as a means to explain the complexity of life is false. It’s false because there’s virtually no evidence to back it up and the little evidence that exists is in dispute. To quote Carl Sagan, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and evidence that the complexity of life we see today arose by blind chance in the face of literally unfathomably long odds has nowhere near the evidence required to make that a credible proposition. <<Parts of the scientific evidence does exclude some interpretations of the Holy Bible, but these are interpretations of a text written by humans and interpreted by humans!>> Written by humans under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit and interpreted by some in the same way. You don’t have to believe the Holy Bible was written under the inspiration, guidance and control of God’s Holy Spirit but that’s an accepted belief in Christianity and there’s no other explanation for all of the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 14:28 |
I haven’t looked into your rebuttal so am not willing to admit at this point that it is settled science. But you made a blatantly false statement just an hour or so ago when you wrote, “It is clear, on the other hand, that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith.” I pointed out a prominent skeptic and critic of Darwinian evolution - David Berlinski - who describes himself as a “secular Jew” and who has written several books that are critical and skeptical of the theory. And I cited him off the top of my head and am sure I could find other secular critics of Darwinian evolution if I looked. Since you were obviously incorrect when you wrote that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith, will you admit you were wrong? If I come to believe I was wrong about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, I’ll admit it. And I’ll look into it in the next couple of days. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 03-Aug-21, 16:17 |
Just fed up with your misrepresentations of what I’ve said and what I believe and your lies, Bob, and you’ve been doing it far longer than one post. <<Good night, Coram.>> Good night, Bob. Feel free to ignore me in the future. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Aug-21, 02:37 |
<<Again, like most Americans, you expect 0 or 100% nothing in between! All I was saying was that a huge majority of the people who criticise Darwinism have a strong religious faith. One or two exceptions just confirm this rule.>> Perhaps you should have said “most” and not “all.” Now you’re saying “one or two” critics of Darwin’s theory don’t have a strong religious faith. Here, after a 10-second Google search, are more than “one or two.” “These nonreligious scientists and scholars who doubt modern Darwinian theory include former U.S. National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis, medical professor Raymond Tallis, Rutgers cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, New York University philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, and Princeton-trained mathematician David Berlinski—all of whom have publicly challenged neo-Darwinism and/or sympathized with ID. Significantly, many of these scholars have faced harsh reactions from fellow nonbelievers. Margulis observes that those who attack Darwin become “persona non grata,” and Fodor has faced pressure to suppress his doubts “in public.” This demonstrates academic intolerance toward Darwin-skeptics, and leads one to wonder how many other atheists would challenge Darwinism if they had the academic freedom to do so.” www.equip.org How many more would you like? May not be easy to find a lot, but that’s at least partially due to the pressure that Darwinian control freaks exert on refuseniks who challenge their atheistic worldview. What other scientific theory caused 1,000+ scientists to join an organization saying the theory should be scrutinized? “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.’ ” dissentfromdarwin.org Do all 1,000+ scientists who signed that statement have a strong religious faith? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Aug-21, 12:25 |
You’re being very dishonest and deceptive, stalhandske. And that’s pretty disappointing but not entirely surprising since you’re an atheist with a very high opinion of himself. But now that I know you’re willing to blatantly lie rather than admit you’re mistaken, don’t be surprised if I don’t bother responding to you in the future. It’s just not worth my time and effort to correct your blatant dishonesty. But I will this time. Here is what you said that started this whole exchange: <<It is clear, on the other hand, that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith.>> You didn’t say “most.” You said “all” serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith, which is false. <<OK, if they aren't 'one or two', may be they are ten. I just haven't encountered a single one yet.>> So now we’re up to ten? And given the reaction that people who question and criticize Darwin’s theory get, are you really surprised that more scientists aren’t willing to risk their careers by criticizing the theory? I’ve cited several scientists who have had the courage to publicly criticize Darwin’s theory, and the reaction they’ve gotten is far from cordial or even professional. It’s hostile and quite indicative that Darwin’s theory has become a religion for atheists. <<I am fully aware of Lynn Margulis and her great work on endosymbiosis. I have not seen any evidence of her disregarding Darwinian evolution as 'garbage'.>> Again you’re being dishonest by moving the goalposts. Your initial (false) assertion was, “It is clear, on the other hand, that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith.” That is what Lynn Margulis stands in refutation of. I never said she viewed the theory of evolution as “garbage,” nor did I present her as an example of someone who did. I presented her (and others) as examples that prove your statement, “It is clear, on the other hand, that all serious criticism against Darwinian evolution theory comes from people with strong religious faith” is false. I think you’ve got a real problem with pride, stalhandske. If you’re willing to blatantly lie and deceive rather than admit you were wrong in such a trivial matter as a conversation on a chess website, how quickly do you resort to lying and deception in more consequential matters? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Aug-21, 20:32 |
And have you looked for the evidence? |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Aug-21, 21:57 |
Really? You don’t consider eyewitness testimony to be valid? Because many people are on record as having seen Jesus Christ alive after He was crucified. How many people have seen one species turn into another species? Where is the evidence for that? These experts in evaluating evidence disagree with you. Are their opinions not worth considering? “Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853) was one of the founders of Harvard Law School. He authored the authoritative three-volume text, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which is still considered ‘the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.’ Greenleaf literally wrote the rules of evidence for the U.S. legal system. He was certainly a man who knew how to weigh the facts. He was an atheist until he accepted a challenge by his students to investigate the case for Christ's resurrection. After personally collecting and examining the evidence based on rules of evidence that he helped establish, Greenleaf became a Christian and wrote the classic, Testimony of the Evangelists. Let [the Gospel's] testimony be sifted, as it were given in a court of justice on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability, and truth. Sir Lionel Luckhoo (1914-1997) is considered one of the greatest lawyers in British history. He's recorded in the Guinness Book of World Records as the ‘World's Most Successful Advocate,’ with 245 consecutive murder acquittals. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II -- twice. Luckhoo declared: I humbly add I have spent more than 42 years as a defense trial lawyer appearing in many parts of the world and am still in active practice. I have been fortunate to secure a number of successes in jury trials and I say unequivocally the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is so overwhelming that it compels acceptance by proof which leaves absolutely no room for doubt. Lee Strobel was a Yale-educated, award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. As an atheist, he decided to compile a legal case against Jesus Christ and prove him to be a fraud by the weight of the evidence. As Legal Editor of the Tribune, Strobel's area of expertise was courtroom analysis. To make his case against Christ, Strobel cross-examined a number of Christian authorities, recognized experts in their own fields of study (including PhD's from such prestigious academic centers as Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis). He conducted his examination with no religious bias, other than his predisposition to atheism. Remarkably, after compiling and critically examining the evidence for himself, Strobel became a Christian. Stunned by his findings, he organized the evidence into a book entitled, The Case for Christ, which won the Gold Medallion Book Award for excellence. Strobel asks one thing of each reader - remain unbiased in your examination of the evidence. In the end, judge the evidence for yourself, acting as the lone juror in the case for Christ.” www.allaboutthejourney.org I suggest these three men were different from you, stalhandske. They had an open mind and were willing to do the work necessary to ascertain if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was plausible. They weren’t closed-minded and intellectually lazy. <<That does not mean one cannot believe (have faith), which is perfectly all right with me (I've always had this opinion).>> How generous of you to allow someone to disagree with you and have faith in God. How benevolent of you, o mighty stalhandske! <<I have been strongly arguing against mixing religious belief with science. They simply do not mix.>> Tell that to Bob, your milksop, who’s constantly trying to mix them. All due respect, stalhandske, and I mean this sincerely, I respect your accomplishments in your profession, but you’re too close-minded to engage in a meaningful discussion about the theory of evolution or God. I presented you with several problems with the theory (orphan genes being the most interesting and notable) and your response was, “Look it up on the Internet.” Your mind’s made up and you have no interest in a legitimate debate. You’ll go to your grave being an ignorant fool and that’s not my fault - you’re too prideful and stubborn to open your eyes and admit you don’t know everything there is to be known. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 04-Aug-21, 23:02 |
You have a habit, Bob (I would say an almost pathological habit) of bearing false witness. It’s not a stretch to think this unfortunate habit of yours extends into a courtroom. That said, I really have no interest any longer in conversing with you or stalhandske. I wish you both well. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 05-Aug-21, 00:04 |
youtu.be images.app.goo.gl |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 07:26 |
* State the exact number of transitional fossils that exist; * State the names of those fossils and when and where they were found; * State why they are believed to be transitional fossils, and - if one were approaching this scientifically and therefore did not have an emotional or ideological interest in the outcome - what characteristics of the purported transitional fossils cast doubt (to whatever degree) on them being transitional fossils. I’ve said many times that Darwin’s theory has survived long past its expiration date due to vague generalities, lack of scrutiny and its status in many people’s minds as “settled science.” The truth is, the theory of evolution has become the religion of atheists, as one prominent evolutionist admitted, and therefore cannot be looked at objectively by its believers. One fella on here went so far as to say that if evidence emerged that contradicted the theory of evolution, that wouldn’t mean the theory wasn’t true - it would mean the theory had to be modified. Note the fanaticism - the theory is “true” no matter what! And note the intellectual laziness of evolutionists when confronted with the Cambrian explosion - “why evolution just speeded up!” |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 08:14 |
m.gameknot.com One fella on here just said evolutionists stick with the theory of evolution because there’s not a better alternative. How’s that for a ringing endorsement! So to heck with all the reasons why the theory isn’t credible - they believe it ‘cause there’s no other alternative! 🙄 Of course, there is an alternative but these silly billies won’t admit it. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) “For by him [Jesus Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” (Colossians 1:16-17) “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” (Hebrews 1:1-2) “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 08:32 |
“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” (John 13:34) Guess who said that? It wasn’t Darwin! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 10:35 |
I believe in science. I don’t believe the theory of evolution *as a way to explain the complexity of life* is science. I think it explains changes within a species but it’s not credible as an explanation for one species turning into a different species. The theory of evolution has become a religion for atheists, and I’m far from the first to believe that - even a prominent evolutionist admits it. Therefore, atheists will believe it no matter what. The fact is, more evidence exists for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ than exists for one species turning into another species by random mutation and natural selection (otherwise known as blind chance.) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 15:51 |
Claims to the contrary - that any of the above are “Christian dogma” - are false. Christianity is based on the Bible - not what church leaders say or think (then or now.) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 16:42 |
1) An uncredited copy-and-paste (probably from Wikipedia) that doesn’t identify any transitional fossils. 2) Someone saw a big fossil on a TV program. The rest is typical nasty insults and verbal gymnastics. Come on, fellas! Snap out of it! A class of sleepy third-graders could come up with what you’ve posted. I’m gonna have to break out the smelling salts if you guys can’t get your act together. It’s a miracle you can put your pants on in the morning! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 17:52 |
1) An uncredited copy-and-paste (probably from Wikipedia) that doesn’t identify any transitional fossils. 2) Someone saw a big fossil on a TV program. But the insults, personal attacks and misrepresentations of arguments against Darwin’s theory are firing on all cylinders. That’s what you get when you criticize the atheists’ religion! |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 09-Aug-21, 22:36 |
The above link is in response to a link posted in the evolution thread, but I could post literally a dozen more, and some of the articles I’ve already posted in the Why Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is Garbage thread speak to the impossibility of the complexity of life we see today being the result of random mutations and natural selection (also known as blind chance.) In fact, at the molecular level, the theory can’t even get started. The atheists are again claiming - and again claiming falsely - that criticism of the theory of evolution is motivated by religion. But it’s not - it’s motivated by lack of evidence. Atheists never want the theory of evolution to be scrutinized and they become quite hostile when it is (this is also documented in the two evolution threads in this club.) In their minds, giving up the theory of evolution is tantamount to admitting God exists and that’s something they will go to their graves denying. |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 03:28 |
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint… the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.’ “ answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 07:10 |
Professor David Gelernter, Yale University, from his article, “Giving Up Darwin” (I.D. refers to Intelligent Design) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 07:57 |
There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.” William Provine, the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences at the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. (This guy must have been a barrel of laughs at dinner parties!) |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 08:40 |
‘We no longer feel ourselves to be guests in someone else’s home and therefore obliged to make our behavior conform with a set of preexisting cosmic rules. It is our creation now. We make the rules. We establish the parameters of reality. We create the world, and because we do, we no longer feel beholden to outside forces. We no longer have to justify our behavior, for we are now the architects of the universe. We are responsible to nothing outside ourselves, for we are the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever.’ ” Jeremy Rifkin, an American economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker, political advisor, and activist. answersingenesis.org |
|||||||||||||
|
coram_deo 10-Aug-21, 09:26 |
Huxley gave what he himself called ‘lay sermons,’ and he worked hard to promote his world vision. In one of the most interesting moves, he and fellow workers even set about building churches — cathedrals — to their new religion. Except they called them ‘museums of natural history.’ These were places where, instead of going to a Christian cathedral on a Sunday morning, a family could go on a Sunday afternoon and seen (sic) magnificent panoramas of past life: all of those fossil dinosaurs being dug up in the American West and shipped east for all to see and admire. On the principle that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, natural history museum after museum was built in the style of a gothic cathedral or earlier. Gaze at the Norman architecture of the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto and you could be in Durham, England. As it happens, toward the end of his life, Thomas Henry Huxley began to doubt the worth of his philosophy. He did not return to God, but he began to doubt that evolution had all of the answers. But this has not stopped his successors, starting with another grandson, Julian Huxley. This younger Huxley even wrote a book called ‘Religion without Revelation,’ where he saw Darwinian evolution working progressively up to our species and where he saw nature itself giving directives about proper action — action to preserve and help humankind. Today, the world’s most distinguished Darwinian, Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University, likewise thinks that evolution progresses up to humans and speaks of his world picture as a ‘myth’ that must replace conventional religions.” Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986) Note: The above is an excerpt from a longer article. To read the article in its entirety, click this link: m.huffpost.com |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
