The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Kathryn]

Okay, then you accept it as a fact. That is good to know. One thing, if one actually understands evolution one does not have to "believe" in it any more than one believes in gravity. There is more scientific evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. Do you say that you believe in that?

EDIT: If you have any serious questions about evolution I can try to explain it to you without videos. Though I may refer you to proper papers that do it better than I can.

Sorry I am not using the terminology you prefer and thanks but no thanks on the papers since I don't have any questions about evolution. I mean, I am sure I could learn more but I would need to WANT TO, and I don't really want to. I guess just about everyone could learn more. And sure, I believe in gravity too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry I am not using the terminology you prefer and thanks but no thanks on the papers since I don't have any questions about evolution. I mean, I am sure I could learn more but I would need to WANT TO, and I don't really want to. I guess just about everyone could learn more. And sure, I believe in gravity too.

No problem. I prefer knowledge, and I would like to learn more about gravity myself. I can understand Newtonian gravity, I used to understand it better. It relies upon calculus and I do not use that often enough to retain all of the skills that I had in college. I would like to learn more, but the math for General Relativity is far worse. But I still understand it well enough so that I can say "I know".

 

[Kathryn]

No problem. I prefer knowledge, and I would like to learn more about gravity myself. I can understand Newtonian gravity, I used to understand it better. It relies upon calculus and I do not use that often enough to retain all of the skills that I had in college. I would like to learn more, but the math for General Relativity is far worse. But I still understand it well enough so that I can say "I know".

Whatever you say.

TRUE STORY TIME:

My college educated, Who's Who dad called me overseas when he was in his fifties, before calls overseas were free, and told me "I had to call someone because for the first time in my life, I used Algebra!" He used it while he was building a fence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever you say.

TRUE STORY TIME:

My college educated, Who's Who dad called me overseas when he was in his fifties, before calls overseas were free, and told me "I had to call someone because for the first time in my life, I used Algebra!" He used it while he was building a fence.

Upper level mathematics is not used a lot in everyday life. But it is still a nice tool to have sometimes as your father found out.

 

[Kathryn]

Upper level mathematics is not used a lot in everyday life. But it is still a nice tool to have sometimes as your father found out.

Yes, thirty years later. For the first time. He and I were both not even sure it WAS Algebra that he used!

TRUE STORY TIME:

I decided to go back to school and had to take a placement test, so I did so. Weirdly all the math was in multiple choice form. Let me tell you something, they were educated guesses but guesses all the same. I fully expected to fail the math portion but instead, I came in at an advanced Algebra level. I said, "You don't get it - I need remedial math probably, and certainly not an ADVANCED Algebra course!" But they would not even listen to me!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, thirty years later. For the first time. He and I were both not even sure it WAS Algebra that he used!

TRUE STORY TIME:

I decided to go back to school and had to take a placement test, so I did so. Weirdly all the math was in multiple choice form. Let me tell you something, they were educated guesses but guesses all the same. I fully expected to fail the math portion but instead, I came in at an advanced Algebra level. I said, "You don't get it - I need remedial math probably, and certainly not an ADVANCED Algebra course!" But they would not even listen to me!

Multiple choice is not the best way to test for math skills. But there are ways to grade tests that perhaps they should have used. Some tests take away more for questions that are answered incorrectly rather than if someone simply skipped the problem. A quick and dirty test gives one quick and dirty approximations.

And if you are interested in learning math there are excellent free online sources.

EDIT: By the way, I learned my high school calculus over Christmas break. The last half of the year after trigonometry was calculus. My older, and even nerdier brother, had a book called "Quick Calculus" that led me through the concepts and when the class began I already had learned just about everything that we covered. This may be a later edition of the same book. At least one of the authors is old enough to have written the book that I studied:

https://www.amazon.com/Quick-Calculus-Self-Teaching-Guide-2nd/dp/0471827223

It is really a very well written book and you could probably read and understand it as well.

 

[Kathryn]

Multiple choice is not the best way to test for math skills. But there are ways to grade tests that perhaps they should have used. Some tests take away more for questions that are answered incorrectly rather than if someone simply skipped the problem. A quick and dirty test gives one quick and dirty approximations.

And if you are interested in learning math there are excellent free online sources.

EDIT: By the way, I learned my high school calculus over Christmas break. The last half of the year after trigonometry was calculus. My older, and even nerdier brother, had a book called "Quick Calculus" that led me through the concepts and when the class began I already had learned just about everything that we covered. This may be a later edition of the same book. At least one of the authors is old enough to have written the book that I studied:

https://www.amazon.com/Quick-Calculus-Self-Teaching-Guide-2nd/dp/0471827223

It is really a very well written book and you could probably read and understand it as well.

Oh thank you but no thanks! I think I need to learn advanced algebra first!

 

[YoursTrue]

100% false, plus the statement isn't even remotely logical to begin with.

Let's talk about logic for a moment, shall we? How logical it is regarding evolution that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to conceive while a virgin?

 

[YoursTrue]

How are you defining magic YT? Are you just parroting our characterization of creationism?
It doesn't mean astonishing or remarkable. "Magical theory" is an oxymoron.

Name one tenet of the ToE that's not based on sound, objective evidence.
For that matter name one tenet of magic poofing that is based on sound, objective evidence. Your creationism is faith-based. Admit it.

It is frankly no longer a matter of question for me. Scientists may investigate the processes, but cannot explain with certitude how it all happened as well as the forces that continue these processes. I'm not saying mechanics as found in genetic transference, but rather the processes behind them.

 

[Esteban X]

Let's talk about logic for a moment, shall we? How logical it is regarding evolution that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to conceive while a virgin?

We can be sure that DIDN'T happen.

 

[YoursTrue]

We can be sure that DIDN'T happen.

Well, thank you for your answer. But the Catholic church says it's a dogma that Mary remained eternal virgin, despite getting pregnant and giving birth among other things. I do not know exactly how all Catholics feel about this. But seems from what I read that this dogma that she is/was eternal virgin cannot be changed.

 

[YoursTrue]

We can be sure that DIDN'T happen.

Many would silently agree with you, especially based on science.

 

[Valjean]

It is frankly no longer a matter of question for me. Scientists may investigate the processes, but cannot explain with certitude how it all happened as well as the forces that continue these processes. I'm not saying mechanics as found in genetic transference, but rather the processes behind them.

Huh? What do you mean "how it all happened? Abiogenesis? Evolution? Creation ex nihilo?

The ToE does describe the processes behind evolution; the 'mechanics' involved -- plus the supporting evidence and testing. That's what the ToE is.

Abiogenesis does not yet know the sequence of steps involved in generating life from chemical interactions. Many steps are understood and have been observed, but not a whole sequence. This is not evidence that some natural, chemical sequence is not feasible or did not occur.

Abiogenesis by magic poofing? No supporting evidence. No evidence such a thing even exists. No known process or force that would enable such a thing. No need to propose magic when known processes are being uncovered.

 

[metis]

Let's talk about logic for a moment, shall we? How logical it is regarding evolution that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is said to conceive while a virgin?

0% imo

 

[YoursTrue]

0% imo

Oh, ok. Thank you. So I guess you imagine that's a myth also.

 

[blü 2]

Oh, ok. Thank you. So I guess you imagine that's a myth also.

Indeed. It can't even be a case of parthenogenesis, were such possible in humans, because the offspring was male, meaning (according to the story, but not to the ordinary listener in the bar) Jesus got his Y-chromosome from God.

Of course, Mark's earlier version has the great advantage of being the only vaguely credible version. His Jesus isn't born of a virgin, but is an ordinary Jewish male who, when JtB baptizes him, is then and not before adopted by God as [his] son, in the same manner that God had adopted David as [his] son (Psalm 2:7) ─ a view expressly confirmed in Acts 13:33.

Oddly enough, neither Paul nor the author of John had heard of that virgin-birth story, or they'd have been grossly remiss not to mention it. Instead, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John (unlike the synoptic Jesuses, and on a Gnostic model) lived in heaven with God, created the material world (regardless of what Genesis might say) and came to earth as God's envoy ─ but with zero details about how that coming to earth was accomplished. However, we might infer those Jesuses were born of Jewish parents, since both authors claim their Jesus is descended from David.

(Mark's Jesus, you'll recall, is the only one who says out loud that you don't need to be descended from David, and the absurd 'genealogies' in Matthew and Luke purporting to show Jesus' descent from David are nonsense, and irreconcilable with each other into the bargain, AND are not for Jesus but out loud and expressly for Joseph, who just as loudly was NOT Jesus' father in those stories.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed. It can't even be a case of parthenogenesis, were such possible in humans, because the offspring was male, meaning (according to the story, but not to the ordinary listener in the bar) Jesus got his Y-chromosome from God.

Of course, Mark's earlier version has the great advantage of being the only vaguely credible version. His Jesus isn't born of a virgin, but is an ordinary Jewish male who, when JtB baptizes him, is then and not before adopted by God as [his] son, in the same manner that God had adopted David as [his] son (Psalm 2:7) ─ a view expressly confirmed in Acts 13:33.

Oddly enough, neither Paul nor the author of John had heard of that virgin-birth story, or they'd have been grossly remiss not to mention it. Instead, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John (unlike the synoptic Jesuses, and on a Gnostic model) lived in heaven with God, created the material world (regardless of what Genesis might say) and came to earth as God's envoy ─ but with zero details about how that coming to earth was accomplished. However, we might infer those Jesuses were born of Jewish parents, since both authors claim their Jesus is descended from David.

(Mark's Jesus, you'll recall, is the only one who says out loud that you don't need to be descended from David, and the absurd and irreconcilable 'genealogies' purporting to show Jesus' descent from David are nonsense, and irreconcilable with each other into the bargain, AND are not for Jesus but out loud and expressly for Joseph, who just as loudly was NOT Jesus' father in those stories.)

ok, I'm not sure of everything you are saying, but thank you for stating you do not believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Maybe when I have time I'll go into more of your post. I don't think you claim to be a Christian, do you, or attend a church that claims affiliation with Jesus as part of a Trinity born to a virgin, do you?

 

[blü 2]

ok, I'm not sure of everything you are saying, but thank you for stating you do not believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant.

There are five versions of Jesus in the NT, and those of Matthew and Luke are the only two who assert Mary's virginity ─ a minority view even within the NT, on that basis.

Maybe when I have time I'll go into more of your post.

I'll look forward to hearing from you about your research and the conclusions you draw from it.

I don't think you claim to be a Christian, do you, or attend a church that claims affiliation with Jesus as part of a Trinity born to a virgin, do you?

I gave an outline here >Reasons for atheism<.

The trouble with the Christian habit of trying to make a single story of Jesus out of the four gospels and Paul is that you end up with a sixth version of Jesus that ─ exactly like the other five ─ is not compatible with any of them.

 

[Valjean]

ok, I'm not sure of everything you are saying, but thank you for stating you do not believe that Mary was a virgin when she got pregnant. Maybe when I have time I'll go into more of your post. I don't think you claim to be a Christian, do you, or attend a church that claims affiliation with Jesus as part of a Trinity born to a virgin, do you?

If I claimed my mother, or my cat's mother, were virgins, would you believe me? Would you not at least ask for some objective evidence?
So why should we not be seriously skeptical about fantastical hearsay by unknown persons from ancient times? Where is the actual evidence that Mary was impregnated by a ghost?

 

[YoursTrue]

If I claimed my mother, or my cat's mother, were virgins, would you believe me? Would you not at least ask for some objective evidence?
So why should we not be seriously skeptical about fantastical hearsay by unknown persons from ancient times? Where is the actual evidence that Mary was impregnated by a ghost?

And that is why -- not only is evolution a theory lacking continuity, and by that I mean there are no fossils demonstrating the integral (also inner) parts of whatever fish, for instance, said to move/morph/graduate/evolve to apes, or the inner workings of any population shifting from dinosaurs to birds. I am sure these recognitions won't stop the many from advocating the theory as absolutely true nevertheless.