Is Darwinism True?

by Perry 71 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Leolaia

But Leolaia, you did write that you reject Creationism.
LOL this is like saying you, Perry, reject God because you reject a given theology. You keep conflating creationism with the object it supposedly discusses.
But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible?
This has nothing at all to do with what I wrote. I do not imagine that creationists are those people going around trying to duplicate the "creation" of life and that is why they are pseudoscientific. Creationism in its various forms is a system of belief that in many circles portrays itself as a science in giving a "counter-explanation" for the history of life on this planet.
And interesting for making my point that you are assuming that something is "impossible" because it cannot be done "now" with current science and technology.
So which is the part of Creationism that you reject then? Is it the part that includes a God who must judge you righteously?
Since I was talking about creationism as a form of pseudoscience, YES the Judeo-Christian religious notion of divine judgment should not belong in scientific explanations of the world. Maybe some people believe that God sent the hurricane to the people of New Orleans as a form of divine judgment, but I would regard as pseudoscientific a meteorological model that has that as an explanation for why the hurricane took the track it did.
Who gives you the authority to pick and choose what kind of God you would like to have create the universe.
Because I don't have any specific belief of God is supposed to be like, I find your statement odd. Especially since you do have a very good idea of what you believe is the kind of God that created the universe.
Who says God is non-scientific? That ridiculous. They're his laws.
Why do you think I was saying that God is non-scientific? Again, you misconstrue things. I was talking about methodology in science, not whether God is thought to follow scientific laws.
You don't seem to be in search of a scientific theory to account for the complexity of life per se , as much as you seem to be hoping that a secular scientific theory comes along that eliminates the judgment part of that explanation. Just my take.
Rest assured, I am not worried and desperately hoping for some scientific theory to come along to absolve worries about something I have no belief in. I am being honest in pointing out that just because science is a method for explaining the world, it doesn't mean that it already has everything all explained. Just because we don't understand a phenomenon fully yet doesn't mean we should give up the pursuit of natural explanations of how the universe works.
And Ben Franklin believed in God as did most of the great scientists and inventors in our history. You have it backwards. History doesn't match your worldview.
Please understand what I am saying. I am not talking about having a belief in God. I am talking about using said belief as a critical component of a scientific theory. I am sure you do not mean that Franklin, or any other scientist studying lightning and electricity, claimed that a valid explanation of the phenomenon of lightning must describe God's own involvement in the process.
metatron

Some day, all this silly back and forth will end and Evolution and Creation will brought together a la Hegel ( thesis + antithesis = synthesis). Creationism is unacceptable because no God imaginable would be so psychopathic as to create horrors like dinosaurs and giant running crocodiles.
If we see consciousness distributed thru nature, there is no problem and no single guy with a beard on a throne making stuff. Even footdragging NASA is getting close to announcing life on Mars and Creationism is still being kicked around.
metatron
thetrueone

They were highly successful scientists and scholars who lived during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
Yes that may be true, what has to considered is the time in human history these men lived, when the
open denial of a supreme being ( god) could have had dire personal consequences for these men.
Added the enormous amount of the knowledge obtained from the era of those men and the conclusion should be an obvious one.
This a perfect example of what I'm talking about. In order to make this statement true, you would have to be God yourself, having by necessity to be omnipresent.
Not at all , when I look through a telescope at the farthest regions in outer space and see a unusual astrological phenomena,
I can still confidently say thats not the god creator just as well as looking at a frog in a pond.
Physical matter is defined by are intelligence and knowledge and is evolutionary in many instances .
Perry

Please understand what I am saying. I am not talking about having a belief in God. I am talking about using said belief as a critical component of a scientific theory. I am sure you do not mean that Franklin, or any other scientist studying lightning and electricity, claimed that a valid explanation of the phenomenon of lightning must describe God's own involvement in the process.
Leolaia,
Of course Franklin believed God casused Lightning. You seem to be stating that a Christian statement like "God causes Lightning" is false, or at least ignorant but ONLY an explanation is true that would include all the meteorlogical phenomonon [as if that could predict the bolts or the weather ]. Both can be true silly. Not discounting the incredulity here, how could you possibly think such a thing unless you already knew God didn't exist?
I have not said in strong terms that there is not a God, or that divine creative activity (however that is supposed to be construed) was not involved in the origin and development of the universe.
On the one hand you need to leave the possibility open for a creator, to compensate for the great chasm between human knowledge/ability - and the complexity of say - a single cell on the other, as you already stated. But, when you feel that you can explain something, just get rid of him again?
You are certainly NOT unique in this at all. This is what people do with the largess of God. In our current condition, we don't know how to live with such a being. This is exactly what the Israelites did to God. They envoked him when they needed him and tried to get rid of him when they felt safe. Safety without God is an illusion. If you knew Jesus you would know God, and you would not feel compelled to do this.
The facts are:
1. You and the list of prestigeous scientists/researchers on the list agree: Random Mutation and and Natural Selection CANNOT account for the complexity of Life.
2. Yet, the public consumption news sources, universities, and pulp info sources such as this board mostly give that impression and this is what many believe; though at the same time it is widely believed to be untrue by researchers. This is pure disinformation.
3. Neither you nor anyone else has given a plausible explanation of how interdependent systems in a single cell could have appeared simutaneously (as needed to function) or how they could have evolved.
4. Neither you nor anyone else has given any plausible explanation how something can come from nothing.
5. Current related Darwinian theories like the geologic column, millions of years old dinosaurs, are ludicrous in light of clear depictions of dinosaurs in human art, and recent finds of stinking dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells and dna fragments in POREOUS SANDSTONE. I am much more comfortable with other arguments for an ancient age of the earth.
So, there is certainly no where near the body of evidence needed to even remotely suggest that God doesn't exist, or to hold that paradigm as a valid position. To the contrary, science - because of its advances, NEEDS a god to to account for the near infinite complexity of life as well as other things.
As a life-long business man, I can assure you that when there is a need - SOMEONE will step forward and sell you what you need. That someone is predicted in the bible, which has accurately predicted hundreds of other events:
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.…For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. [Holy Spirit in Born Again Believers]
And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4,7-11).
Many, many people are aware of the utter failure of (God denying) science to adequetely explain a wide range of things. We are now in a place where a god is desparately needed to step forward. Movies, books, television and the internet are saturated with stuff like aliens from other planets, ananuki space daddies "seeding" the earth etc. We are being psychologically prepared. The god that science now desparately needs in on the way. God predicted it. Get ready for it. If you don't have Jesus; You are about to be sold a bill of goods.
What I am constantly saying is this: You and anyone else CAN KNOW GOD NOW; should you choose to do so. I know God personally, and it is a wonderful life with him. I am not totally dependent on man for answers. This is a great relief since I have found our species to essentially be a race of liars. People who wiped my rear-end, watched over me tenaciously when I was sick, and provided my every need simply disappeared forever when I asked how they could withstand the judgment of God without Jesus as their Mediator.
Cult member and secular researcher alike are repulsed by such a contemplation. There is no safety in ignorance.
notverylikely

But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible?
God said that with him, all things were possible. Why are you calling god wrong? Who are you to tell god what he can or can't do?
But creation (of life) can't actually now be duplicated and isn't subject to scientific methods. How can you reject something that is impossible?
That's resurrection, Perry, not The Creation.
What did Isaac Newton, Renes Descartes, Galileo Galilei, Robert Boyle, James Maxwell, and Michael Faraday all have in common?
They were all, to some degree, products of their environments, much like many of the brilliant scientists (who later came to the US to work) all, in theory, had to agree to support the nazi party.
Why is this significant? It means that if you believe in God and believe in science (in the sense of recognizing science as a noble pursuit of truth), then you are in good company. You are in the company of men like Newton, Boyle, and Galileo. Don't forget Albert Einstein either.
Wrong.
Einstein: " "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
Since you clearly haven't even bothered to spend five minutes googling facts on these men or what they beleive, I have trouble beleiving that you would understand it or accept it if you did. This argument is summarily dismissed and incorrect.
On the one hand you need to leave the possibility open for a creator, to compensate for the great chasm between human knowledge/ability - and the complexity of say - a single cell on the other, as you already stated. But, when you feel that you can explain something, just get rid of him again.
Why?
notverylikely

1. You and the list of prestigeous scientists/researchers on the list agree: Random Mutation and and Natural Selection CANNOT account for the complexity of Life.
Yes, and I pointed you to information that accounts for that just fine, has been observed in action and does not involve God, and you have ignored dealing with it.
2. Yet, the public consumption news sources, universities, and pulp info sources such as this board mostly give that impression and this is what many believe; though at the same time it is widely believed to be untrue by researchers. This is pure disinformation.
So? The media mis-reports things all the time, like that turkey contains a chemical that makes you sleepy. Urban legends and mis-information is repeated ALL the time. You did it above with your point number one I just quoted.
3. Neither you nor anyone else has given a plausible explanation of how interdependent systems in a single cell could have appeared simutaneously (as needed to function) or how they could have evolved.
You have'nt shown me proof god exists. What's your point? There is MORE evidence for evolution (it being observed in action, for instance) than there is for god (an old book full of contradictions).
4. Neither you nor anyone else has given any plausible explanation how something can come from nothing.
You are absolutely right. So god CAN'T exists since he had to come from somewhere....on the other hand, who, besides you, who just proved god can't exist, is saying life came from nothing?
5. Current related Darwinian theories like the geologic column, millions of years old dinosaurs, are ludicrous in light of clear depictions of dinosaurs in human art, and recent finds of stinking dinosaur soft tissue, blood cells and dna fragments in POREOUS SANDSTONE. I am much more comfortable with other arguments for an ancient age of the earth.
You're right. I saw a dinosaur in a movie a while back. That must be proof they exist today. And, whether or not you are comfortable with an idea has nothing to do with how true it is or isn't.
So, there is certainly no where near the body of evidence needed to even remotely suggest that God doesn't exist, or to hold that paradigm as a valid position. To the contrary, science - because of its advances, NEEDS a god to to account for the near infinite complexity of life as well as other things.
No, you again get it backwards (I hope you don't do that when picking out a date!). It's the astounding LACK of evidence for god and the evidence for everything else that strongly suggests you are wrong.
As a life-long business man, I can assure you that when there is a need - SOMEONE will step forward and sell you what you need. That someone is predicted in the bible, which has accurately predicted hundreds of other events:
Oh, a BUSINESS man, well, then, you must be smrt about thangs like genetics or munny or something cause your in business. Tell me, how much money do you make at this business? I am in business too and I want to see if'n yer better at business than me.
Perry

NVL,
You are simply out of touch with most people.
"God does not play dice with the universe" - Einstein
Edited to Add: Your challenge is simple: Please provide a plausible evolution explanation that would show how the interdependent functions [where one needs the other simutaneously] in a cell (like shown in the Harvard video) could evolve.
notverylikely

You are simply out of touch with most people.
Good. Most people never critically examine anything and swallow whatever tripe someone pushes on them. I do find it interesting that, in order to support your "most people" idea, you link to a biased website. However in the world do you succeed at whatever business you are a business man at with all the bad data you seem to use for making decisions?
Perry

We are waiting NVL, What's your explanation?
notverylikely

We are waiting NVL, What's your explanation?
For what?

Is Darwinism True?

Share this