Darwin's Illusion

[LIIA]

Only by the classical sense.

really? what is the contemporary sense

 

[LIIA]

What is odd is that he keeps extolling the advances that Islam the Arabic countries had, he calls it "the Golden Age of Islam"

Ok, back on track. The discussion was triggered by @blü 2’s question in # 6008 "what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?” I answered in my post # 7354

Darwin's Illusion | Page 368 | Religious Forums

The intent is not to keep extolling, but you kept denying and I kept correcting you. That is why the discussion continued. And NO, I’m not the one who calls it "the Golden Age of Islam", the history does. See the link.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

And it is true. At one point they did pretty much lead the world in that sense. And then their religion was overtaken by fundamentalists.

Overtaken by fundamentalists! Simply false.

As @exchemist told you, it’s a phenomenon that surfaced in the 20th century, it's by far a minority group. what/how/why it surfaced is something that you neither understand nor relevant to this thread. Don’t bring nonsense to advance a false narrative. the contribution of the golden age to the betterment of humanity is a fact that can't be denied.

And since he did not want to know what important step that the Europeans added

Europeans definitely added a lot but I neither denied it nor it’s relevant to my point about the golden age.

One of the most important parts of the scientific method is communication. Open communication of findings and techniques allows others to check and verify or refute ideas. It also guarantees the widespread availability of that knowledge. That was one of the key steps never developed in Islam before fundamentalism shut down new thought.

You make me laugh; here is what Gerd B. Müller said about the “open communication" with respect to the ToE challenges in the royal society conference in 2016:

“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Does it sound familiar? But guess what! English is not my first language, I had to look both edifice & fatuous in the dictionary. To my surprise, in plain English, he literally (in the royal society conference) said that the traditional evolutionary theoretical massive structure is stupid.

Fatuous Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

I agree that his words are a little harsh, he should have said it in a way that is less offensive, but I wonder who is shutting down his new thoughts about the ToE, I don’t think they are the Islamic fundamentalists, do you?

 

[LIIA]

The ToE is not " the modern synthesis".

This is the second most ridiculous claim I ever heard on this long thread. But don’t worry; you also get credit for the first one as well when you said, “Islam is not creationism”.

The ToE is a scientific theory. The contemporary scientific theory of evolution is " the modern synthesis". There is no other theory. Do you understand?

Again, the modern synthesis was disproved due to its inconsistency with latest scientific finds and it was not replaced with another agreed upon theory. Meaning, currently, there is no valid or agreed upon theory of evolution. Do you understand?

 

[LIIA]

False beyond belief. The irreducible complexity of biological systems has not been falsified by any scientific research.

False empty assertions. So why it was not falsified? Is it because any serious attempt of falsification whould only proves irreducibly complexity to be true?

I’m telling you again, you can neither exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other interdependent constituents.

See # 5999

Darwin's Illusion | Page 300 | Religious Forums

See # 7403

Darwin's Illusion | Page 371 | Religious Forums

 

[LIIA]

False., as these cells produce measurable energy and energy has its effects.

Irrelevant, your phone battery produce measurable energy and energy has its effects, does this prove that your phone is conscious or capable of qualia?

I gave you an opinion of an expert and you gave me a personal subjective opinion.

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

See #7673

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

Also, common sense through observations tells us that all materials appear to change over time and genes are material objects. Within the Eastern traditions, they recognized this reality many centuries ago.

Yes, materials may change over time, does this mean a pile of building blocks exposed to the environment, maybe some lightening, earthquake, volcano, tornado, etc, you give it some time and then voila “Sagrada Família”.

Not all changes are equal. You need an explanation for the blocks to begin with, let alone “Sagrada Família”.

 

[LIIA]

Your bolded assertions concerning what science has determined concerning the relationship of the physical brain and consciousness and intelligence are overwhelmingly false, based on ancient tribal agenda. You need to do your homework on the current knowledge of science.

This is also reflected in your claim of 'irreducible complexity.' Bolding stuff without knowledge of science does not help your agenda.

You address the irrelevant and ignore the relevant. You’re concerned about bolded text and ignore the fact that it’s not my personal claim, the entire article (not only the bolded text) and conclusion with respect to the nature of consciousness is made by an expert and published by The New York Academy of Sciences. On the other hand, you merely make empty assertion based on subjective personal opinion. If you disagree, provide your reference.

And please don’t accuse the other side of the argument to be implementing an agenda, the other side may very well claim the same about you and instead of rational argument based on reason it turns into some exchange of nonsense.

 

[LIIA]

None of this or your previous posts has any relevance to the sciences of evolution. Please reference peer-reviewed scientific publications to support your argument. So far you have only cited questionable sources.

Totally irrelevant!! Please try to understand the context before you comment.

It’s a scientific article titled “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis” published by ACS Publications on January 9, 2020, the context here is ABIOGENESIS not evolution.

Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis | Chemical Reviews (acs.org)

Please no nonsense about questionable sources; ACS Publications is a respectful source that maintains high editorial standards/ informed peer review.

pubs.acs.org/page/about-us.html

 

[LIIA]

there are 386 pages of responses...so i hope im not repeating something someone else has already noted...the above was of Aristotle origins not Charles Darwin...

Aristotle's theory of the “spontaneous generation” of life

It was debunked by Louis Pasteur

“Spontaneous generation” was the idea that living organisms can spring into existence from non-living matter. In the late 19th century, in a showdown between chemist Louis Pasteur and biologist Felix Pouchet put on by the French Academy of Sciences, Pasteur famously came up with an experiment that debunked the theory.

It was debunked by Louis Pasteur in 1859, the same year when Darwin published “the origin of species”. Meaning during the years that Darwin was working on his book till the time he finally published it, spontaneous generation was still accepted. @Neuropteron’s point is valid.

We still don’t know what life is, but we have a slightly better understanding about its complexity, Life in any shape or form is extremely complex. This was not the understanding during the time of Darwin, Life was considered as something simple that could emerge spontaneously in a “warm little bond” then diversify.

But you would be surprised; the concept that life can emerge from non-living matter didn’t die; now it has a new fancy name called “abiogenesis”. Some smarties would tell you NO, abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. of course, the magic word is always “slowly/gradually”. You invoke the magic word, and you can do wonders. You can transform a fish into an elephant. You can even educate some smarties, but the latter proved to be much harder.

“Experimentalists used a variety of terms for the study of the origin of life from nonliving materials,……,and the English physiologist Henry Charlton Bastian proposed the term archebiosis for life originating from non-living materials. Disliking the randomness and unpredictability implied by the term spontaneous generation, in 1870 Bastian coined the term biogenesis for the formation of life from nonliving matter. Soon thereafter, however, the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley proposed the term abiogenesis for this same process,”

Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia

 

[LIIA]

No biologists would say either about “randomness” or “perfection”, or about “from randomness to perfection”. These are actually your false claims; you are attacking strawman, the strawman you had created.

Natural Selection doesn’t work through randomness.

See the link and quote below from an article provided by @shunyadragon

“In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes.”

Fractal Evolution

You may want to see # 7724 as well.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 387 | Religious Forums

The endlessly exquisite design of nature is the “Perfection". The proposed pathway to that “Perfection" is allegedly through random genetic mutation, the “Randomness".

Natural Selection may keep or dispose depending on the environment but that has nothing to do with the assumption of the ToE that all changes are random, mostly worthless and without any guarantee that the specific change that would promote better fitness within a niche may ever emerge. Natural Selection always works on random/purposeless changes.

The ToE postulates that the change process is always random. The perfection that we see in nature comes at the expense of an enormous pile of worthless junk that got disposed of by selection.

Natural Selection occurred, depending on the environment. When the environment changed, then it is better if organisms have necessary physical traits that ensured reproduction for population to flourish.

Say, for instant, a glacial period of no warmer seasons for several or more generations, then would populations of animals that grow thicker hairs or fur, or would populations of animals that are hairless, survive better in future generations?

It isn’t random, if animals are selected with thicker hair or fur, when there are no warm seasons in their lifetime.

Likewise, it isn’t “random”, when people explore the depth of oceans, only to find many species of marine life (eg unknown species of fishes, marine arthropods, mollusa or cephalopods) have no eyes, or do have eyes but are completely blind, because no sunlight can penetrate this depth. They often find their foods through other means.

To say, Natural Selection involved randomness, just demonstrates how little you understand the subject.

Even, with Mutations, there are still limits as to what changes can occur at genetic-level or at cellular-level.

When scientists introduce new antibiotics or new vaccines to fight off bacteria pathogens, over times, bacteria pathogen will change through mutations that new species becomes either resistant or immune to the new antibiotics or vaccines. Then scientists would have to find another ways to develop new antibiotics or vaccines.

How many times we discussed this? I thought we’re long past this point but here we are back to square one.

I never said that Natural Selection is a random process; you get off track very easily. Randomness of the assumed evolutionary process is in the sense that available options for Selection are always random changes.

Natural Selection is not a creative force nor has any intention or purpose to create anything. If random genetic mutation appears then Selection may keep or dispose, if it doesn’t appear, then it is what it is, nothing can get it to appear, selection wouldn’t force it to appear. The change process is supposedly always random.

Random genetic mutation is purposeless and wouldn’t guarantee any specific advantageous change to appear at all. This is not what we see in nature. We can guarantee and predict for a fact that the microorganisms will always develop the ability to survive against the drugs designed to kill them (Antimicrobial Resistance), we also know for a fact the timeframe for such adaptation to take effect. It happens every single time and within the same timeframe (which is typically few days). If the change process is random, we wouldn’t be able to make such guarantee or such accurate prediction. A specific random change may happen one time but not every single time.

Your examples of perfect adaptations within a niche that can be seen everywhere in nature are supposedly the end product on top of endless worthless junk that got disposed of by Selection, where are the evidence for this worthless junk?

This changes via mutations, are not random.

Mutations are not random. See # 1245

Darwin's Illusion | Page 63 | Religious Forums

Even after a long route of eliminating bad traits by Selection, after we get to the point of perfect adaptation within a niche, random genetic mutations would very well continue to give rise to random bad traits that reduce fitness, and Selection would continue to dispose these new non-advantages variants. We don’t see that in nature. Did you ever see random dark color variants emerging among polar bears? I know you didn’t, can you provide evidence for any other example? Mutations are not random.

 

[LIIA]

Oh. I forgot

@LIIA

I had forgotten to say more about your faulty claim that evolution is about “perfection”.

Evolution isn’t about achieving “perfection”.

For organisms to continually reproduce, even when the environmental conditions have changed, they require to pass on heritable adaptable traits that are advantageous for that ”changed environments“.

The changes don’t have to be large changes.

For instances, trees around the world, are naturally “selected” for their environments.

The types of trees and shrubs with broad leaves in the tropical rainforests, are normally found in the tropic regions, around the equator, where the climate are often hot and wet, with much higher humidity.

Around high mountainous terrains such as alpine, or in the much colder climates of the northern parts of the northern hemisphere, like the taiga regions, the forests found here tends to be of the conifer families. Conifers are more resistant to freezing than deciduous trees.

You won’t find tropical rainforest in the taiga or in alpine regions.

These trees growing in the environment suited for such forests, have nothing to with any tree being “perfect“.

you are being ignorant on the subject of evolution if you are making false claims that organisms are seeking to reach perfection.

 

[LIIA]

Oh. I forgot

@LIIA

I had forgotten to say more about your faulty claim that evolution is about “perfection”.

Evolution isn’t about achieving “perfection”.

Obviously, you cannot keep track of the argument. I’m not the one who claims that “perfection” in nature is the result of "planlessness" evolutionary process.

Perfection is a fact that we all can witness in nature (see #7724). Only an ignorant or incapacitated would deny it. The question is “how this perfection is brought about?

Darwinists claim that they provide the explanation to that perfection through the means of random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Simply Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes. Evolution is allegedly the explanation for that perfection. If evolution cannot bring about the perfection of nature, then evolution is false.

For organisms to continually reproduce, even when the environmental conditions have changed, they require to pass on heritable adaptable traits that are advantageous for that ”changed environments“.

A random process cannot guarantee that advantageous heritable adaptable traits would emerge to suit that specific “changed environment".

The changes don’t have to be large changes.

For instances, trees around the world, are naturally “selected” for their environments.

The types of trees and shrubs with broad leaves in the tropical rainforests, are normally found in the tropic regions, around the equator, where the climate are often hot and wet, with much higher humidity.

Around high mountainous terrains such as alpine, or in the much colder climates of the northern parts of the northern hemisphere, like the taiga regions, the forests found here tends to be of the conifer families. Conifers are more resistant to freezing than deciduous trees.

You won’t find tropical rainforest in the taiga or in alpine regions.

These trees growing in the environment suited for such forests, have nothing to with any tree being “perfect“.

Complex interdependent traits specifically suited for a niche have everything to do with being perfect. If you don’t have the capacity to see it, see # 7724 it may help.

Darwin's Illusion | Page 387 | Religious Forums

Again, every organism you mentioned is specifically suited for its niche. No exception. That is perfection. You claim that perfection is the product of Natural Selection, but Natural Selection process must select the good and dispose the bad. The good is allegedly the end product of a tedious process of disposing endless random bad variants that keep emerging (even after perfection is achieved); now give me any evidence for those endless bad variants that were not suited for its niche and got disposed by Selection or waiting to be disposed by selection. Such as the example of random dark color mutations among polar bears, it simply doesn’t exist.

you are being ignorant on the subject of evolution if you are making false claims that organisms are seeking to reach perfection.

Neither the organisms nor the purposeless evolution is seeking anything.

Perfection is simply a fact of nature. If the perfection of nature is not or cannot be a product of evolution, then evolution is simply false.

Perfection is a product of numerous interdependent complex systems that can neither function nor evolve in isolation of each other.

 

[LIIA]

Neither of your links even address this matter, and that sentence doesn't describe what happens in nature. Evolution doesn't occur in isolation and no intermediate is missing a vital part.

I didn’t say that Evolution occurs in isolation. I’m saying that the survival of any organism whether an intermediate, transitional form, single-celled, multicellular, or any living system of any kind depends on complex interdependent constituents. The functionality of every single constituent is dependent on the other constituents and vice versa. You can neither exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other interdependent constituents. It’s a fact that we witness in every single living system as previously explained in # 7495 & # 7403. You do understand my point? Don’t you?

Every living organism is evidence that every form from zygote to mature adult is viable. There is no reason that abiogenesis followed by evolution could not have generated the last universal common ancestor and from it the tree of life including the extinct forms.

LUCA is supposedly a single celled living system; as a living system, its survival is also contingent upon multiple interdependent functions/ constituents. No constituent can be functional in isolation of the other interdependent constituents, being nonfunctional means that the system cannot be alive without the necessary functions. Time is the absolute enemy of the process since dead organic molecules will not increase in complexity but rather decompose/disintegrate to simpler molecules.

Do really believe that single-celled organisms living today such as bacteria will ever transform into elephants at some point in the future?

You answered, "Your link doesn't support your claim that, "Latest 21st century scientific finds disproved all central assumptions of the theory." It proposes that the theory is incomplete."

Yes, seriously. What do you think that graphic does to support your claim?

The language of the article was very clear that all central assumptions of the MS were disproved. The 21st century scientific finds in this context are specifically from within molecular biology as well as evolutionary developmental biology, epigenetics , physiology , genomics, ecology, population genetics, regulatory evolution, network approaches, behavioural biology, microbiology, systems biology, etc.

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

See# 7684

Darwin's Illusion | Page 385 | Religious Forums

I wrote, "Where are you going with this? What's your purpose in discussing the definition of species? I presume that your ultimate purpose is to argue for an intelligent designer, but I need you to give me your larger argument to decide if this will be a profitable avenue to pursue further with you. Right now, I can't see any relevance to whether the theory is wrong or not."

Nothing has changed with your answer, so I ignored your subsequent comment about ring species. I have no further interest in discussing what you consider a species and a subspecies. You've already said what you believe, I disagreed, and since your purpose in pursuing this line of questioning if any is going to remain a mystery, that's a hard pass on spending more time there.

When you get the point (I know you did) and realize that you were wrong, you shouldn’t argue.

You claimed that the ends of ring species are different species that don’t interbreed and argued that these different species are evidence for evolution and claimed that “to say they are not - that they are subspecies - is to redefine the word”.

I explained to you that the populations of a ring complex are considered as subspecies not different species (simply because of the assumed gene flow around the ring). And explained to you that the inability of interbreeding per the example of Great Danes and Chihuahua is not enough delineation of different species. And also explained to you that currently there are no examples of ring species.

In fact, breeds of dogs may be argued to be an example of ring species every breed from Chihuahua to Great Danes can exchange genes with a slightly bigger dog, the gene flow continues around the ring and the two ends (Chihuahua and Great Danes) cannot interbreed. But bummer, Chihuahua and Great Danes are not different species or subspecies. Both are the exact same species.

By your standards above, I just redefined the word! or maybe the world!! Did I?

There are no ring species – Why Evolution Is True

Do you think you showed that to be the case with dog breeding? I don't.

Mere denial

You also don't have a mechanism to prevent macroevolution from proceeding.

It’s the other way around; you don't have a mechanism for macroevolution to proceed.

Do you think you showed that to be the case with dog breeding? I don't. You also don't have a mechanism to prevent macroevolution from proceeding. Saying that it's never been observed is meaningless. We wouldn't expect to have observed new taxonomic families arise in the time we've been looking.

A complete orbit of Pluto around the sun has also never been observed, but I dare say that if the possibility contradicted biblical scripture, we'd be seeing the same argument there - "nobody's ever seen a complete orbit, so macro-orbiting is impossible" and my objection would be the same: "What's going to stop Pluto from macro-orbiting given the necessary time?"

It’s not about “never been observed”. This is not the point. Again, the point is that there are no means through which a new taxonomic family may emerge. Neither natural nor artificial.

 

[LIIA]

No evidence for you perhaps. I have plenty, albeit not conclusive.

Its not about you or me, I gave you a reference.

My comment was, "I have no reason to believe that consciousness (and thought) is not a physical epiphenomenon of brains." Your comment doesn't address mine. I still have no reason to believe that mind is not an epiphenomenon of brain.

I gave you a reference article published by The New York Academy of Sciences, and you gave me your subjective opinion. The fact that “you have no reason to believe” is merely your subjective opinion.

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

Cognition implies consciousness. Other physical processes don't.

You contradict yourself; you acknowledge that physical processes don't Imply consciousness yet insist that consciousness itself is a physical process!!

But yes, physical processes/interactions of matter don’t give rise to consciousness, self-awareness, thoughts, feelings and qualia, all are non-physical and can’t be produced through interactions of matter.

I decide based in the behavior of the organism and the understanding that all life is made of the same stuff in the same way. So, when I see you acting like me - opening your umbrella when it begins to rain - I project my consciousness known to me directly and immediately onto you. A tree shows no sign of self/other awareness. An ant is a harder call. Although it's made of the same stuff and in the same way as a tiger or a man, it's believable that all of its behavior is mindless (unconscious) reflex and tropism.

If all life is made of the same stuff in the same way, then why you interpret observed behavior of input processing/decision making differently in different organisms? Do you judge by size? Is this why an ant is a harder call to you?

But regardless, your subjective opinion is not a justification. Again, scientific research showed that even the smallest forms of live has the ability of input processing/decision making, i.e., cognition.

It's harder with a human appearing robot (think Data on Star Trek: TNG or Robin Williams' character in the movie AI - robots with apparent emotion and human concerns), since it's not made of the same stuff in the same way as life.

If you understand that consciousness is physical, then why can’t a robot equipped with artificial intelligence technology, power source and has the ability of input processing/decision making be conscious?

I agree that it’s because it’s not alive or not made the same way as life. Yes, only live is capable of consciousness/ self-awareness. The robot may receive/process data and reacts to it but even if the data include photos, sounds or smell signals from various sensors, but the robot doesn’t see, hear, smell or have qualia of any kind. These characteristics are exclusive to live.

But for the sake of argument, if we consider that the ant is unconscious, isn’t the automated unconscious robot a product of intelligence? In fact, the most sophisticated man-made robot doesn’t compare to a very simple living creature such as the ant.

It’s impossible to fully simulate even a very simple living creature beyond a few of their functions. Robots can’t do and may never possess the ability to mimic the specific functions of life such as reproduction, healing and self-repair, converting food to functional and diverse tissues and energy. The simplest living organisms do these functions very well. Robots may never possess the ability to perform such extremely complex functions, yet it’s a broadly common miracle among living creatures. it's the "norm". the "norm" takes away the wonder.

 

[Audie]

This is the second most ridiculous claim I ever heard on this long thread. But don’t worry; you also get credit for the first one as well when you said, “Islam is not creationism”.

The ToE is a scientific theory. The contemporary scientific theory of evolution is " the modern synthesis". There is no other theory. Do you understand?

Again, the modern synthesis was disproved due to its inconsistency with latest scientific finds and it was not replaced with another agreed upon theory. Meaning, currently, there is no valid or agreed upon theory of evolution. Do you understand?

I understand that an aggressive approach to semantic
games suits you.
And that it is impossible to be a well informed
and intellectually honest creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

then your case is hopeless

Projection. You have been the one that refuses to learn from your mistakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

really? what is the contemporary sense

Rudeness is a method of defending self imposed ignorance. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, back on track. The discussion was triggered by @blü 2’s question in # 6008 "what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?” I answered in my post # 7354

Darwin's Illusion | Page 368 | Religious Forums

The intent is not to keep extolling, but you kept denying and I kept correcting you. That is why the discussion continued. And NO, I’m not the one who calls it "the Golden Age of Islam", the history does. See the link.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia


Overtaken by fundamentalists! Simply false.

You should have read your whole.Wiki article.. One of the leading factors.in the end of the Islamic Golden Age was the rise of fundamentalism under Al Ghzali.

As @exchemist told you, it’s a phenomenon that surfaced in the 20th century, it's by far a minority group. what/how/why it surfaced is something that you neither understand nor relevant to this thread. Don’t bring nonsense to advance a false narrative. the contribution of the golden age to the betterment of humanity is a fact that can't be denied.

It ended far before then, or are you now talking about just the recent surge in fundamentalism?

Europeans definitely added a lot but I neither denied it nor it’s relevant to my point about the golden age.



You make me laugh; here is what Gerd B. Müller said about the “open communication" with respect to the ToE challenges in the royal society conference in 2016:

“Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous, but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory”

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

Does it sound familiar? But guess what! English is not my first language, I had to look both edifice & fatuous in the dictionary. To my surprise, in plain English, he literally (in the royal society conference) said that the traditional evolutionary theoretical massive structure is stupid.

Fatuous Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

I agree that his words are a little harsh, he should have said it in a way that is less offensive, but I wonder who is shutting down his new thoughts about the ToE, I don’t think they are the Islamic fundamentalists, do you?

Desperately siting people that accept the fact of evolution does not help you. He accepts the fact that people are apes. He is only arguing about the mechanisms.

 

[Audie]

Rudeness is a method of defending self imposed ignorance. Try again.

Or dont

 

[metis]

Irrelevant, your phone battery produce measurable energy and energy has its effects, does this prove that your phone is conscious or capable of qualia?

I gave you an opinion of an expert and you gave me a personal subjective opinion.

Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of Sciences (nyas.org)

See #7673

Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums

Yes, materials may change over time, does this mean a pile of building blocks exposed to the environment, maybe some lightening, earthquake, volcano, tornado, etc, you give it some time and then voila “Sagrada Família”.

Not all changes are equal. You need an explanation for the blocks to begin with, let alone “Sagrada Família”.

You can believe whatever floats your rubber ducky, I guess. Evolution simply is common sense and energy is involved-- period.

 

[LIIA]

I understand that an aggressive approach to semantic
games suits you.
And that it is impossible to be a well informed
and intellectually honest creationist.

Didn’t I advise you if you want your words to be relevant, forget about the person and address the argument? Don’t fool yourself; we all know that such approach is merely a pathetic escape. Now forget about the nonsense and enlighten us, how is Islam not creationism and how the scientific theory of evolution is not the modern synthesis? Try to bring something of substance to the discussion. If all what you can do is some pathetic emotional nonsense, then please just keep it to yourself.