-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:09 am
Can somebody here tell me why Christians deny so VEHEMENTLY the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution? There must a religion-driven reason, but I haven't figured it out yet what it is. What is it in the Bible that evolutionary theory pulverizes?
That’s not what happens.
It's the other way around.
What happens is resistance to the questioning of Darwin’s theories of species origin.
The resistance takes many forms and can be quite creative and pugnacious. Resistance to the inquiry is the basis of choosing up sides. It's likely so vehement, even belittling in the case of Sagan, because it reinforces a foundation of belief.
-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:09 am
Can somebody here tell me why Christians deny so VEHEMENTLY the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution? There must a religion-driven reason, but I haven't figured it out yet what it is. What is it in the Bible that evolutionary theory pulverizes?
That’s not what happens.
It's the other way around.
What happens is resistance to the questioning of Darwin’s theories of species origin.
The resistance takes many forms and can be quite creative and pugnacious. Resistance to the inquiry is the basis of choosing up sides. It's likely so vehement, even belittling in the case of Sagan, because it reinforces a foundation of belief.
I am sorry, but you are speaking idiotic ideas.
With the same token, why don't Christians ask themselves why they don't doubt their vehement faith that the Darwinian evolution is incorrect?
You really shot over the net here, Walker. You are one of the most blood-thirsty theists on this forum. If you can't answer this truthfully, then you are just further proving the point that you go into the territories of insincerity in order to propagate your faith.
-1- wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:09 am
Can somebody here tell me why Christians deny so VEHEMENTLY the theory of neo-Darwinian evolution? There must a religion-driven reason, but I haven't figured it out yet what it is. What is it in the Bible that evolutionary theory pulverizes?
That’s not what happens.
It's the other way around.
What happens is resistance to the questioning of Darwin’s theories of species origin.
The resistance takes many forms and can be quite creative and pugnacious. Resistance to the inquiry is the basis of choosing up sides. It's likely so vehement, even belittling in the case of Sagan, because it reinforces a foundation of belief.
I am sorry, but you are speaking idiotic ideas.
With the same token, why don't Christians ask themselves why they don't doubt their vehement faith that the Darwinian evolution is incorrect?
You really shot over the net here, Walker. You are one of the most blood-thirsty theists on this forum. If you can't answer this truthfully, then you are just further proving the point that you go into the territories of insincerity in order to propagate your faith.
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 9:37 am
That’s not what happens.
It's the other way around.
What happens is resistance to the questioning of Darwin’s theories of species origin.
The resistance takes many forms and can be quite creative and pugnacious. Resistance to the inquiry is the basis of choosing up sides. It's likely so vehement, even belittling in the case of Sagan, because it reinforces a foundation of belief.
I am sorry, but you are speaking idiotic ideas.
With the same token, why don't Christians ask themselves why they don't doubt their vehement faith that the Darwinian evolution is incorrect?
You really shot over the net here, Walker. You are one of the most blood-thirsty theists on this forum. If you can't answer this truthfully, then you are just further proving the point that you go into the territories of insincerity in order to propagate your faith.
Pfuy.
Typical response from an idiotic moron.
thanks for helping me out and rounding up my previous note to you. Your reflection (I assume on your own opinion) is a nice conclusion to the debate.
1 wrote:
thanks for helping me out and rounding up my previous note to you. Your reflection (I assume on your own opinion) is a nice conclusion to the debate.
Who knows, or cares, about whatever relationship game you're talking about.
Do you know, or do you have more distractions from the topic, any more resistance to the questioning of Darwin's theories concerning the origin of species?
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:28 am
Much more logical to assume 'imaginary magic man' than to understand that gradual change happens to everything
Significant change happens quickly, like a bolt of lightning, like the last exhalation, although the body may spend years in preparation and subsequent reflection.
Berlinski is taking a very narrow view of science. Essentially he is arguing that anything that doesn't match the template of mathematical physics isn't science. That is his prerogative, but if you take that view, then you are wasting your time trying to argue that things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity and all of creationism are scientific.
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 4:46 pmIn this particular instance, Berlinski is asking, “Living systems don’t experience catastrophic failure under random mutations … because (why?)”
Because most genetic catastrophes don't make it past a few cell divisions. Of the ones that do, most are miscarried, many are stillborn and of the few that make it out alive, some, if their mutation is advantageous, prosper and pass on their genes as the engines of evolution and some are the last of their line.
18:30. “Almost all mutations are deleterious. Almost all of them do the organism absolutely no good. In fact, we have a devilishly hard time finding any mutations that do the organism any good whatsoever.”
22:19. “Of course I find it difficult to imagine that any contemporary state of affairs is the result of essentially a random process. Not difficult for theological, not difficult for religious, not difficult for any reasons that are sacred, but difficult because we have an enormous amount of experience with the underlying kind of processes, mathematics, statistics, and we never see anything like that.”
18:30. “Almost all mutations are deleterious. Almost all of them do the organism absolutely no good. In fact, we have a devilishly hard time finding any mutations that do the organism any good whatsoever.”
4:30
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:30 pm... most genetic catastrophes don't make it past a few cell divisions. Of the ones that do, most are miscarried, many are stillborn and of the few that make it out alive, some, if their mutation is advantageous, prosper and pass on their genes as the engines of evolution and some are the last of their line.
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 5:58 pm22:19. “Of course I find it difficult to imagine that any contemporary state of affairs is the result of essentially a random process. Not difficult for theological, not difficult for religious, not difficult for any reasons that are sacred, but difficult because we have an enormous amount of experience with the underlying kind of processes, mathematics, statistics, and we never see anything like that.”
12:46
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:46 pmBerlinski is taking a very narrow view of science. Essentially he is arguing that anything that doesn't match the template of mathematical physics isn't science. That is his prerogative, but if you take that view, then you are wasting your time trying to argue that things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity and all of creationism are scientific.
That’s his point, that this scientific theory doesn’t hold up to scientific questioning/scrutiny.
Berlinski, same source:
7:26. “The sheer fact is, without a tremendous amount of very special manipulation and ad hoc constraints, the computer is not going to generate anything realistic if it uses Darwinian mechanisms, and it will generate something realistic only if it doesn’t use Darwinian mechanisms. This is an important point. 50 years after the computer revolution began we have a splendid tool for assessing the intelligibility and viability of Darwinian theory, and everything that we know, everything that we know, and I think this is the uniform experience of anyone working in genetic algorithms indicates, these mechanisms will not work. They will not work for their intended purposes.”
8:11. “We should be able to start manipulating organisms. When we look at bacteria no matter what we do they stay bugs. They don’t change in their fundamental nature. Bugs stay bugs. There seems to be some sort of an inherent species limitation, and we have no good explanation for this in terms of Darwinian theory.”
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:33 pmThat’s his point, that this scientific theory doesn’t hold up to scientific questioning/scrutiny.
And again...
uwot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 1:46 pmBerlinski is taking a very narrow view of science. Essentially he is arguing that anything that doesn't match the template of mathematical physics isn't science. That is his prerogative, but if you take that view, then you are wasting your time trying to argue that things like intelligent design, irreducible complexity and all of creationism are scientific.
