Posted on 12/15/2023 1:35:37 AM PST by spirited irish
Of course you do realize that co-disciplinary efforts happen right? Which doesn’t at all change the fact that they are different disciplines. Like when we make mars missions, those involve orbit guys, and electronics guys, and rocket guys, and chip guys, etc etc. And just because they’re working together doesn’t make a rocket guy a chip guy. Oh no of course you don’t. That would prove you wrong. Again.
Nope. It doesn’t have bearing on it either. Really there are many religious scientists. They don’t have a problem. The only time there’s any bearing comes from, as I already said, dumb religious people with weak faith. Those are the people who feel threatened when science says that the current human interpretation of the Bible is wrong. You know, the clowns who put Galileo in jail because Copernicus’ math sucked. They decided that their weak faith was threatened by the idea that the universe didn’t revolve around the earth. Even though that was just a human interpretation of the Bible which is really quite vague about orbital mechanics. Galileo was quite religious and thought his observations and math showed how awesome God was, putting all these things in self perpetuating orbits and all.
So no. Science has no bearing on religion either.
“ People studying evolution DON’T study bio-genesis”
I provided an example.
Here’s another.
There are thousands.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33119583/
“Evolution of linkage and genome expansion in protocells: The origin of chromosomes”
This is evolutionists studying what you call “bio-genesis” (abiogenesis being the more accepted term).
You simply parrot bromides you’ve read on talk.origins or some such natter.
Ii guess you’ll say, “but they’re not studying evolution.”
Science has always had interest in religious precepts, rightly or wrongly, at broad philosophical levels.
Western science used concepts of fixed laws created by God to explore nature.
It worked in informing theories and hypotheses.
You don’t even understand what you write. You’re the one with all the bromides you read on creationistlied.com.
Nope. You are wrong again. And you know it. Which is why you ignore everything I said about Galileo. Science is unconcerned with religion. And smart religious people with strong faith are unconcerned with science. Your addiction to these threads, and your addiction to constantly lying on them, shows you have weak faith and no mind. So really I got better things to do. Buh bye
Of course I understand what I’m saying and providing you.
Why would you think otherwise.
What I’ve told you is simple, accurate and I’ve provided examples.
You are the one who wrote “ People studying evolution DON’T study bio-genesis.”
What do you think “bio-genesis”, as you call it, is?
You seem to think any study of pre-DNA based replicative life is not studying evolution.
“ Which is why you ignore everything I said about Galileo.”
I guess I missed that.
“ And smart religious people with strong faith are unconcerned with science. ”
Unless they’re scientists themselves. Or are interested in science and technology.
You mean unconcerned with science as something that would affect their faith, which I agree with you about.
“ You know, the clowns who put Galileo in jail because Copernicus’ math sucked.”
What does bureaucrats clamping down on someone unfairly have to do with science?
“ They decided that their weak faith was threatened by the idea that the universe didn’t revolve around the earth. ”
Yes. They were mistaken and hubristic. And despotic.
The scientists determined the actual fact by positing laws of nature exist. The idea that laws of nature exist did not arise ex nihilo - out of nothing or in a vacuum.
Who says that physically/materially is all there is? Not me.
There is truth and falsehood, right and wrong, none of which is material.
There was a time when people lived in caves and were hunter gatherers. The world’s per capita resources were about a million times greater than they are now. They should have been rich, physically/materially. However, they were poor. There is no physical/material explanation.
The missing ingredient is knowledge, itself neither physical nor material.
I think that is about right.
I remember debates about the fossil record. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory. He argued that someday it would. That is a little peculiar. He was saying, in effect, have faith - though he did not use those words.
With the passage of time many fossils were found. Critics said there were still too many large gaps. Defenders of consensus labelled all critics as “creationists.” They used slander and intimidation, as they still do today.
Gould and Eldredge came up with their punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution. They had the right credentials. They believed in evolution. They slammed “creationists.” They were on the “right” side.
They admitted “the dirty little secret of paleontology”: that the fossil record had too many large gaps to support Darwin’s theory. For the few who paid attention to matters of fact, the critics (so-called creationists) were right all along. No credit was given for being right as this had become a matter of taking sides, not taking the side of truth and civility.
“ Who says that physically/materially is all there is? Not me.”
Not me either.
I’m talking about what science can address.
They cite it against people who argue that the alleged weaknesses or incompleteness of Darwinism (because it doesn't purport to explain EVERYTHING) somehow make Creationism more plausible - and against people who argue that Darwinism can't be true because... "BIBLE!"
Regards,
Consider that humans and chimps share ancestors from 3 million years ago. Evolutionary selection of genetic traits (survival of the fittest) could not have acted rapidly enough to produce the observed differences in so few near-extinctions. Changes in gene expression opens up these possibilities and more.
I beg your pardon! I didn't realize that I was conversing with someone who already had a thorough grounding in Darwin's theory, and was qualified to expound upon it.
You are leaning too heavily upon the meaning of words used in common, everyday speech (variant of the Semantic Fallacy), with a good measure of the Teleological Fallacy.
Words like "goal" or "benefit" are work-arounds when explaining evolutionary mechanisms. Like if you were to point out that my usage of the word "mechanism" necessarily implies that there must therefore have been a "mechanic" to devise it!
Regards,
So it’s a surrogate theological argument.
Yes, the post-Morgan Darwinist new synthesis was totally wrong.
I was saying what you generically referred to as epigenetics does not validate Lamarkism.
Your vague-yet-laconic style of discourse contributes little to nothing to the conversation at hand.
You are adding nothing substantive, advancing no falsifiable claims, attempting to explain nothing, but criticizing everything.
Regards,
Given enough time — centuries, millennia, hundreds of millennia — you might be able to, however that doesn’t mean that it would fly.
The fact that horses with wings haven’t already evolved probably should have discouraged you.
Wings on a horse aren’t necessary to the horse’s survival or even useful, so it’s not surprising that they didn’t evolve already.
No. The science is more complex than either man envisioned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.