LIIA
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I wouldn’t be able to help you but you may do further search on your own.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The only person with access to your brain is you. If you cannot comprehend what is in there, no one does.Sorry, I wouldn’t be able to help you but you may do further search on your own.
The only person with access to your brain is you. If you cannot comprehend what is in there, no one does.
I will wait until you understand what you are saying.you cannot comprehend what I’m saying.
Fundamental answers with respect to “Beginnings” are not attainable through science, it’s beyond the jurisdictions of science. Any thing that cannot be observed, replicated or get experienced with is beyond the jurisdictions of science. But we can logically understand that objective reality doesn’t stop at the point where we cannot see any further. We don’t and cannot identify the limits of objective reality.
I will wait until you understand what you are saying.
It is false enough. Even that one paper you beat to death as the sole source declaring the veracity of your claims only states that it deals with assumptions that relate to the paper. Certainly not all of them. And you pushing forward the boundaries of science all by yourself too.The 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. is that clear enough? See # 753 & 781
They can certainly be considered as ancestors. Your statement makes no sense. I can't speak for you, but all my ancestors were of the same species and are considered my ancestors.No, interbreeding with the ability to produce fertile offspring necessarily means that Neanderthals were the same species. Being the same species, Neanderthals cannot be considered as ancestors.
The evolutionary view predicts evolved intermediates as a result of speciation. Per the ToE, humans, chimps and bonobo are all descendants of the same common ancestor but numerous speciation events led to present species today. Whenever speciation takes place, the ability of interbreeding with original species is lost. The intermediates are not the same species. The alleged common ancestor is at the split point with two separate branches, one for humans and the other for chimps/bonobo.
We'll discuss who is presenting confused and illogical arguments later.This is another confused illogical argument of yours.
When asked for detail about your position of intelligent design which you mentioned first, you always dismiss those questions with a wave of the hand claiming this thread isn't about that and referencing the OP. Apparently, you don't consider that to be true except for things you want to avoid discussing. I don't believe the thread is specifically about the need to replace the theory of evolution. Certainly nothing that could be considered a delusion of Darwin anyway.First, I said that the Modern Synthesis suggested that many of Darwin’s assumptions were wrong. We don’t need to argue about this, do we? I didn’t say that the Modern Synthesis rejected all Darwin’s assumptions. Did I?
Second, in # 804, I was summarizing the history of the theory since Darwin till today. I’m neither focused nor concerned about Darwin’s limitation. My argument (see # 753 & # 781) is NOT ABOUT DARWIN, it’s about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology that disproved all central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis.
Of course. If Denis Nobel declares it, then it must be so. That doesn't sound very scientific coming from someone claiming to be enlightening us ignorant masses though. You know, accepting things without question. Not scientific at all.Denis Nobel said about the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology, “Molecular biology can now be seen to have systematically deconstructed its own dogmas”
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library
It is called claims. Specifically that the theory of evolution needs immediate revision. A fact still not accepted by the scientific consensus and very much debatable. You can declare it all you like, but you haven't demonstrated it.This is called progress, Gnostic. Why can’t you guys read or understand? Why do we have to run in circles?
Given the volume of irrelevant material you post, I am surprised that you would feel the comfort to chastise others for doing that in your personal opinion.Third, stop the load of irrelevant info. Try to understand and focus on what the argument is about.
I agree with that, but it contradicts earlier statements you have made.False, science is an essential contributor to the collective human knowledge.
I don't believe that is true. I think you have another agenda.I’m moving it forward by promoting the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology against the MS.
That is true. What I am doing is disagreeing with you. Hardly the same, since I am very confident you don't speak for science. I do like how your ripped off my use of the phrase "walk it back". I appreciate that you recognize my worthy abilities.You’re trying to walk it back to the mid 20th century by ignoring latest scientific finds, embracing an obsolete theory and ignoring the fact that science is ever changing. See #781.
And you claim to be advancing the boundaries of modern science. Doesn't sound like it.After all, evolutionary biology is not an exact science but rather belongs to “the Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331
Neither is the EES or the declarations of Denis Noble, but that hasn't stopped you from going on and on and on and on about them. There are reasons you may be reluctant to discuss the issue of intelligent design, but it doesn't really appear to be due the subject of this thread.Sure, but its not the subject of this thread.
No they have not.My claims have been substantiated. I’m not demanding anything other than stating the fact that the theory was disproved as clearly shown in #781
If Gerd declares it, then it must be so. You've dropped his name (among others) at least a dozen times on this thread. Didn't you mention in an early post that people accepting and supporting the modern synthesis were notorious name droppers? I think you did. Interesting.The paradigm shift is going to eventually occur. It’s a matter of time; the delay is mainly because of the dogmatic resistance to change.
Gerd B. Müller said in the royal society conference in 2016
You have made a number of declarations on this thread.I don’t provide declaration. I provide evidence. On the other hand, all what you do is meaningless denial. See 781.
I didn't see you provide this evidence. Of course, you pump so much on here, perhaps you did.Make it known that the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology disproved the MS. See # 753 & 781
I am acknowledging you have responded with an opinion that is not based on any evidence of a direct or even indirect impact of the theory of evolution on human morality or its basis. That is your opinion and one that is formed on your personal views and not on scientific fact.I’m acknowledging the opinion of others and stating the supporting facts for the damaging influence of the ToE.
There is no evidence of this. It sounds like fear-driven reactionaryism surrounding a need to maintain certain interpretations of religion and not based on any actual evidence of any moral impact of the theory of evolution.The context is totally different, the utilization of physics may depend on the morality of a society. The ToE influence is damaging the morality itself by eliminating its basis and embracing racism against the weak and the inferior.
No, not meaningless or denial. You really do have an eclectic mess of nonsense where you often contradict yourself. I am wrong about where you are going with it though. I think you are using this smokescreen of seeming scientific objection to promote your unspoken, but underlying agenda against science.Meaningless denial. Try something new.
It is not my rejection that is masquerading as science.It’s going towards the rejection of your nonsense masquerading as science.
That is just the typical denial based on an ID creationism bias. There is no evidence that divinely created life couldn't evolve as described by the theory of evolution.It’s indeed a huge difference. The evolutionary view theorizes that life emerged on earth through a random process. If the origin of life is not random, nothing is. It’s a total change of the mindset.
The scientific view would indicate we look for natural processes for the origin of life. A scientist does not have to accept the theory of evolution for this to be true. I imagine all those scientists whose names you drop should know this too.It’s indeed a huge difference. The evolutionary view theorizes that life emerged on earth through a random process. If the origin of life is not random, nothing is. It’s a total change of the mindset.
Apparently that is how creationists sometimes expect him to be perceived.Is the aim of this discussion to suggest that because Darwin was wrong about some things that evolution as a hypothesis/theory is false?
I get the sense that Darwin is seen as a sort of divine being who all of biological science is hung upon on faith.
Killing people? Who is killing people? What the heck are you talking about?Being aware of this bias is paramount. But experiment is supposed to prevent the silliest hypotheses from being adopted. This is why it's so important that there is no experiment that shows Evolution through "Survival of the Fittest". We're killing people for no reason. It's not making the race stronger or more evolved; it's just murder.
This is just nonsense that doesn't have any factual basis. What does any of that have to do with a theory of how life changes and diversifies over time? Nothing.Many of the concepts of 19th century "science" have been swallowed hook line and sinker by modern people. No matter that Champollion, Darwin, Freud and most of the rest based their nonsense on anti-human and anti-reason because people want to believe all of it, and now it is killing us. Chuck out religion, morals, and reason and replace them with dog eat dog and greed is good. When we replaced good with evil everything began to collapse and we're in the final phases now. From government for sale to the highest bidder to CEO's who don't care how many must die or how high gas prices must go to "save the planet" we don't need no stinkin' morals because we have the God called "greed" on our side.
The strong will survive and breed a better race because Darwin said so.
What does any of that have to do with a theory of how life changes and diversifies over time?
Do you ever say or write something that are true?I’m moving it forward by promoting the 21st century scientific finds of molecular biology against the MS. You’re trying to walk it back to the mid 20th century by ignoring latest scientific finds, embracing an obsolete theory and ignoring the fact that science is ever changing.
Absolutely correct, and what upsets me is that it is so ludicrous and intellectually dishonest that it actual undermines that there hypothetically could have been a "Divine creation" of our universe/multiverse.ID is unfalsifiable and untestable concept, so it doesn't even qualify as “hypothesis”, because Intelligent Design still relied on superstitious belief in supernatural entity of a god, but now creationists called god - “Designer” instead of “Creator”.
Changing god from Creator to Designer, doesn’t help the ID argument. It is still a “God did it” belief, but now they disguised creationism as the “Designer did it”.
Designer did it, isn’t an explanation.
Where we once had morals that included things like "don't murder" and "don't steal" they have been replaced by "don't get caught" or "greed is good". "I was told to do it" is sufficient for any immoral, illegal, or evil act. But no matter how many have been murdered things keep getting worse and it's because Darwin was wrong. He was wrong across the board just like other 19th century scientists that we still hold as paragons of virtue and correctness. Things are getting worse because of killing and stealing. They are getting worse because of widespread dishonesty and lies. Where there were once morals which were largely patterned on ancient science and were simple enough anyone could understand now there's a law against everything and it's just dog eat dog.