Posted on 12/15/2023 1:35:37 AM PST by spirited irish
From the article, quoting the scientists in question:
“They argue that Darwinism is an ideological cadaver.”
I kinda like that characterization. Reminds me of the current occupant.
Evolution = settled science
According to marxist liberals
The Bible - God / creation is
Debunked fairy tales - fiction
The dnc evangelical gospel is
Anarchy - man made laws - govt - religion
Nazi pc fascism666
Jihad - sharia alqueda usa diversity
Crusade war on Judea / Christianity Russia - Israel
layer upon layer of proofreading, auto-correcting, and quality control.”
\/
where did that ability come from ?
let me guess
first
there was nothing
then nothing exploded
and then proofread itself
and auto corrected itself
.
bwa hahaha.
all dazzle and b.s. aside...
evolution = 0
creation by a Creator = 1
game over
( except for the stubornly willfully ignorant professing wisdom )
You evince a gross misunderstand of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (pertaining to entropy) refers only to CLOSED SYSTEMS.
An organism obtaining energy from sources outside itself is NOT A CLOSED SYSTEM.
Regards,
And if they're really so opposed to "purpose," then why do they keep coming up with these plans to "save the earth" and achieve "social justice?" Why don't they just eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow they die???
The discovery of epigenetics refutes the arguments of the rabid post-Darwin purists. But they weren’t Darwinists anyway. Human evolutionary changes were mostly not made through genetic changes, but were made through changes in which genes get expressed.
Epigenetics vindicate Lamarck, not Darwin. But then again, Darwin agreed with Lamarck while expanding Lamarck’s theories. The post-Darwin purists chose to disregard this fact.
Conversely, who set these forces in motion so that sentient beings could discover this mechanism?
There’s very much a difference. And it’s got nothing to do with elan vital or materialism. It’s got to do with understanding that reality is big, human brains are small, and if you want to go seriously exploring any part of reality you need to define limits, put reality in a Venn diagram and decide “I’m studying this circle here, and yes I recognize that it intersects with these other circles, but I’m not studying those circles, I might get INFORMATION from people that do, but that’s not my area of study.”
It’s like the difference between a software developer and a chip designer. Sure you can’t run software without chips, and chips are rather boring without software, but they are 2 different things and the people who do 1 rarely know anything about the other.
Well, cuz, once would have been enough. Evolutionary biology doesn’t take a position on origins, it explains change but thanks for playing.
Those viruses leave inheritable markers on your genome in unique locations with unique characteristics. If your great grandfather got the virus the market will be on your genome and on the genome of your ten thousands grandson.
All humans and all chimpanzees have similar markers from an evolutionary ancestor that was neither human nor chimpanzee. We, both species, are all descendent from an earlier species. Modern genetics would be invalidated were it otherwise.
It means absolutely zero to me if you want to believe in some other idea written by people who didn’t know the earth orbited the sun and the blood circulated in the body.
My daughter, a PhD geneticist already did. But thanks
You may wish to familiarize yourself with talks by and interviews with one Pam Acker, and see if your thinking changes.
For example:
Science vs. The Religion of Evolution (with Pamela Acker)
Avoiding Babylon
213
Likes
1,446
Views
Dec 14
2023
We’re about to embark on a whirlwind tour of the battle of science vs. the religion of evolution, guided by Pamela Acker, through the complex world of young Earth creationism, skepticism toward evolution, and the scientific debates that these views provoke. The journey will take us from our personal perspectives to the cutting-edge realms of genetics and radiocarbon dating. We’ll be revealing our transformation from evolutionists to young Earth creationists, sharing our experiences, and shedding light on contentious issues like the acceptance of evolution within the Catholic community and the dating of dinosaur bones.
Join us as we unpack the controversy surrounding the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones and how it shook the foundations of traditional biochemistry. We’ll also take you through the misconceptions around genetics and evolution, particularly the disputed similarities between humans and chimpanzees. Our conversation doesn’t shy away from controversial theories, like the one suggesting humans must have had ancestors who laid eggs. If that’s not enough, we’ll also dive deep into the fascinating realm of genetic entropy and its implications for our understanding of evolution and cosmology.
We’re thrilled to have Pamela Acker from the Kolbe Center joining us as we navigate the intriguing intersection of evolution and religion. She’ll shed light on the potential impact of genetic entropy on the future of humanity. As we wrap up, we’ll discuss the importance of supporting the Kolbe Center in its mission to promote the truth of creation. So, hold onto your seats and brace yourselves for an exhilarating ride through young Earth creationism, evolution, and everything in between.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DEVRyILnFIw
Great article! I sent it on to my family. Thanks, for posting.
“Evolutionary biology doesn’t take a position on origins”
Chemical evolution doesn’t take a position on evolutionary biology either.
The two are often run together by proponents as evolution.
Well, cuz, once would have been enough.
\/
once what ?
something from nothing ?
fail.
/
Evolutionary biology doesn’t take a position on origins,
\/
cuz it cant.
it just claims it happened
without evidence,
calls THAT science,
then continues the con job.
a bait and switch con.
you cant just start at step 2
\/
it explains change
\/
change of what einstien ?
change of nothing that exploded ?
freaking pathetic weasel argument.
fail
🐎 🪽 ✈️
It’s getting closer
(Here’s a horse with wings that’s flying)
Zero, sorry.
Did even attend one lecture?
And it’s open book.
Empty rhetoric is not science.
Try to answer the question.
You’re wrong and don’t understand materialism or chemistry.
Do you think life is magic?
Do you think natural selection only applies only to cellular organisms that divide?
Yes it is.
One more thing, which is ironic, your argument is essentially an intelligent design argument.
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.