The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,695
Likes: 1,331
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 10, 2019 10:44:15 GMT
When was the first time that you recall you became aware that there is a theory that explains how life evolved on earth? Not sure exactly, but I would have been very young, single digits young. My dad (a very religious man) told me humans were primates like monkeys and apes. I picked up bits and pieces here and there and then had it more formally explained in Catholic school. I don't think I felt all that much about it. I liked monkeys so I liked the idea of being related to them. Other than that it was just another scientific fact that didn't spark any kind of emotional response. A bit like you, I didn't see any conflict between my religious views at the time and evolution - I was taught it by Catholics so I had no reason to doubt Catholicism because of it. I did eventually move away from Catholicism but my reasons were nothing to do with it conflicting with evolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 12:23:16 GMT
When was the first time that you recall you became aware that there is a theory that explains how life evolved on earth? Not sure exactly, but I would have been very young, single digits young. My dad (a very religious man) told me humans were primates like monkeys and apes. I picked up bits and pieces here and there and then had it more formally explained in Catholic school. I don't think I felt all that much about it. I liked monkeys so I liked the idea of being related to them. Other than that it was just another scientific fact that didn't spark any kind of emotional response. A bit like you, I didn't see any conflict between my religious views at the time and evolution - I was taught it by Catholics so I had no reason to doubt Catholicism because of it. I did eventually move away from Catholicism but my reasons were nothing to do with it conflicting with evolution. Just like you I liked monkeys as well and that probably meant I liked evolution more than just any other theory. It's good that your dad explained to you that humans were primates once in spite of being a very religious man. That probably made it easier for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 10, 2019 12:27:25 GMT
If I recall correctly you were not religious even in younger days though you were surrounded by religious folks (Catholics?) in your family. I wonder how you took to evolution? Did you have any issues regarding accepting it or you were fine with it from the first time you read about in school? I was raised Catholic, and went with it, Communion and Confirmation. I even was an altar boy for a few months. But I started questioning the faith and church when I was about 16. I had heard about evolution by then. I never saw a problem with evolution. And I believe that most European Catholics consider evolution to be God's way to fulfill his creation. Creationism is not important in Europe. Yeah, the religion and science do not find so much conflict in Europe as they do in the US. It's good that most religious people in Europe do not have attitude of not believe in evolution at all because it conflicts their religion as many people in the US have. Though things are getting better in the US too. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 16:59:06 GMT
He is objectively reporting what theistic evolutionists believe and not agreeing with them. There isn't a person on this board with a better understanding of evolution than Geode now that Redruth does not post here. He has for years challenged theistic evolutionists and bettered them in past debates. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. 5. The notion that "creationism" and "evolution" are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either. 6. Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. True, but what is your point by pointing this out? 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. That is not an accurate reading of scripture, but once again what is your point in bringing this up? 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. The understanding of genetics that humans used before relatively modern times was rudimentary and hardly on a level to understand the science behind speciation and common descent. 5. The notion that "creationism" and "evolution" are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either. If you are using the usual meaning of "creationism" as being the acceptance of all life "kinds" as having been the result of "special creation" by a divine hand at some point a few thousand years ago you are correct that there is no competition between it and evolutionary science. One is purely based upon religion and has no valid basis in science. 6. Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that. This is not the subject of evolution, but that of abiogenesis. It sounds as if you are making an invalid claim about thermodynamics that is commonly made by creationists. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 17:10:43 GMT
Those of us who are here for years have seen that time and again. And he doesn't need to demonstrate anything to a moron like you. You poor fool couldn't even see "theistic evolutionists" was put in inverted comma for a purpose. Gee AJ. Back to the insults again so soon? I guess 2020 is a long way away when you might need a friendly face in Sydney! It is a prerequisite of effective posting on a message board that you don't reply on past reputation to ensure a meaning to your post. I remember Geode, I remember a variety of things about him and I have been posting on IMDb and here for 17 years. He straight up came on strong to me on this thread when I questioned something he posted about theistic evolution. I don't appreciate it and appreciate it even less that you take up his confused posting cause. I wrote: "I think most "theistic evolutionists" think that the human "body" evolved, but at some point in evolution (time of Adam and Eve) was combined with the "spirit" that did not evolve. The combination of the two creates the "soul".... " You responded: "Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership." I then asked you about what answers were rendered by the concept and which questions it caused. You claimed that the questions I outnumbered the answers. But you ignored my request. "I was not making a case for theistic evolution. But since you appear to be an expert on both evolution and theology why don't you explain what is answered by theistic evolution and what is not answered? What questions are posed by holding to this concept?" So, my questions remain the same. In my opinion there is no need to invoke God to explain the evolution of life as revealed through scientific research. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 11, 2019 20:10:51 GMT
Gee AJ. Back to the insults again so soon? I guess 2020 is a long way away when you might need a friendly face in Sydney! It is a prerequisite of effective posting on a message board that you don't reply on past reputation to ensure a meaning to your post. I remember Geode, I remember a variety of things about him and I have been posting on IMDb and here for 17 years. He straight up came on strong to me on this thread when I questioned something he posted about theistic evolution. I don't appreciate it and appreciate it even less that you take up his confused posting cause. I wrote: "I think most "theistic evolutionists" think that the human "body" evolved, but at some point in evolution (time of Adam and Eve) was combined with the "spirit" that did not evolve. The combination of the two creates the "soul".... " You responded: "Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership." I then asked you about what answers were rendered by the concept and which questions it caused. You claimed that the questions I outnumbered the answers. But you ignored my request. "I was not making a case for theistic evolution. But since you appear to be an expert on both evolution and theology why don't you explain what is answered by theistic evolution and what is not answered? What questions are posed by holding to this concept?" So, my questions remain the same. In my opinion there is no need to invoke God to explain the evolution of life as revealed through scientific research. Let's get this straight. I answered your post at face value. My comments stand as to what you wrote. Although you could not know it because none of us are mind readers on here, I wrote a reply with many questions of the most logical kind, inadvertently lost it and didn't bother to rewrite the post ( the function on here for retaining unposted draft posts for some reason failed me though I tried to restitute it) after being admonished by AJ for not having put your reputation for past responses of this kind, into action when questioning you on that post. I backed down, though I though he was unfair and incorrect. We agree, so why you posted about theistic evolution in a manner that was authoritative, is anyone's guess! |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 11, 2019 23:33:53 GMT
Religious here (well, I was religious when I first started learning about evolution). I'm embarrassed to say I was in graduate school when I really came to understand it. I assume that's what you meant, not just "heard about it." I took a course called Speciation and read Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. I became convinced the life forms we see around us are the result of natural evolution and I've never doubted since....45 years+
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jan 12, 2019 0:05:33 GMT
Religious here (well, I was religious when I first started learning about evolution). I'm embarrassed to say I was in graduate school when I really came to understand it. I assume that's what you meant, not just "heard about it." I took a course called Speciation and read Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. I became convinced the life forms we see around us are the result of natural evolution and I've never doubted since....45 years+ Well done you! *****high five***** |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 12, 2019 0:27:07 GMT
Religious here (well, I was religious when I first started learning about evolution). I'm embarrassed to say I was in graduate school when I really came to understand it. I assume that's what you meant, not just "heard about it." I took a course called Speciation and read Desmond Morris' The Naked Ape. I became convinced the life forms we see around us are the result of natural evolution and I've never doubted since....45 years+ Well done you! *****high five***** Yeah, my shift away from Christianity took a lot longer than becoming convinced of evolution. It was upwards to decade before I finally realized I just didn't believe in that stuff anymore. No epiphany, no trauma, no earth-shaking realizations, just a slow, methodical, daily shift. It was so gradual I hardly knew when it happened, when I would wake up and realize, "I simply don't think there's a god" |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 12, 2019 0:40:48 GMT
Those things attributed below I'm sorry that isn't obvious to you. I will address it presently. Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't? People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads. How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment. I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries. Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 12:13:48 GMT
I wrote: "I think most "theistic evolutionists" think that the human "body" evolved, but at some point in evolution (time of Adam and Eve) was combined with the "spirit" that did not evolve. The combination of the two creates the "soul".... " You responded: "Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership." I then asked you about what answers were rendered by the concept and which questions it caused. You claimed that the questions I outnumbered the answers. But you ignored my request. "I was not making a case for theistic evolution. But since you appear to be an expert on both evolution and theology why don't you explain what is answered by theistic evolution and what is not answered? What questions are posed by holding to this concept?" So, my questions remain the same. In my opinion there is no need to invoke God to explain the evolution of life as revealed through scientific research. Let's get this straight. I answered your post at face value. My comments stand as to what you wrote. Although you could not know it because none of us are mind readers on here, I wrote a reply with many questions of the most logical kind, inadvertently lost it and didn't bother to rewrite the post ( the function on here for retaining unposted draft posts for some reason failed me though I tried to restitute it) after being admonished by AJ for not having put your reputation for past responses of this kind, into action when questioning you on that post. I backed down, though I though he was unfair and incorrect. We agree, so why you posted about theistic evolution in a manner that was authoritative, is anyone's guess! I have also lost posts that I have written that got lost and this is maddening. But I have found that having gone through the thought process involved in writing posts that I lose that when I redo them they take vastly less time to reconstruct. If a post took me half an hour to write, due to looking up multiple references, etc. The second attempt probably would only take a fraction of that time, perhaps 5 -10 mins. or so.
But here you have not rendered a single item or idea in support of your claim about questions and answers involved with the notion of "theistic evolution" which is confusing to me. You made such a strong and bold statement that it sounded as if the ideas were all lined up and ready to go but yet you offered nothing in support of your claim in your first reply. Now you offer ....nothing.....yet again.
I simply gave my opinion about "theistic evolution" and I don't see why you would call it authoritative. Well, perhaps to somebody that knows nothing about the subject it might have come across that way, but you certainly must know all about it since you made this authoritative comment:
"I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership."
|
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 12:45:03 GMT
Those things attributed below I'm sorry that isn't obvious to you. I will address it presently. Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't? People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads. How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment. I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries. Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything. "Arlon: 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property.
Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't?"
Because in the actual scripture Jacob has no clue about genetics. He believes that the reason for the coloring of sheep and goats is due to poles he places in front of them when they are breeding.
"People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads."
I made no comments whatsoever about the education of "religious" people versus those who are not in terms of their education. I am not aware of any "attitude" that I have adopted, as my comments are only about the facts of the matter. Darwin and Mendel did independent study that ended up meshing perfectly together. "Notice the many surveys in other threads." Sorry, what is this supposed to mean? This last sentence seems to be an unrelated and aimless thought.
"How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment."
This sentence basically says nothing and adds nothing to discussion.
"The notion that 'creationism' and 'evolution' are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either."
"I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries."
You did? Where? You did nothing of the kind in this thread. You have not made any case for these claims.
Arlon: 6. "Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that."
"Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything."
Another non-answer, all you do is make a pretentious claim that I am wrong and then make no case at all for this being the case. If consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that I am mistaken about this, cite one or two.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 12, 2019 13:13:27 GMT
"Arlon: 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property.
Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't?"
[1] Because in the actual scripture Jacob has no clue about genetics. He believes that the reason for the coloring of sheep and goats is due to poles he places in front of them when they are breeding.
"People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads."
[2] I made no comments whatsoever about the education of "religious" people versus those who are not in terms of their education. I am not aware of any "attitude" that I have adopted, as my comments are only about the facts of the matter. Darwin and Mendel did independent study that ended up meshing perfectly together. "Notice the many surveys in other threads." Sorry, what is this supposed to mean? This last sentence seems to be an unrelated and aimless thought.
"How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment."
[3] This sentence basically says nothing and adds nothing to discussion.
"The notion that 'creationism' and 'evolution' are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either."
"I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries."
You did? Where? You did nothing of the kind in this thread. [4] You have not made any case for these claims.
Arlon: 6. "Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that."
"Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything."
Another non-answer, all you do is make a pretentious claim that I am wrong and then make no case at all for this being the case.[5] If consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that I am mistaken about this, cite one or two.
[1] No, he did not place spotted bark in front of sheep when they were breeding. He placed spotted bark in the watering troughs so that the sheep would associate spots with refreshment. Pavlov experimented with dogs and their propensity to associate one thing with another. After the sheep associated spots with refreshment they decided the spotted males were preferable. Once again you have shown that you are the one here who failed science. [2] You did indeed fail to see that religious people understood genetics long before Darwin, and still because of your incompetence fail to see it. [3] It highlights your misperception, evident throughout your comments, of the history of genetic knowledge. [4] I did here. You continue to refuse to see it. [5] All, that means including every last one, of the experiments on RNA chains show that they obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus do not (cannot) assemble long chains of RNA. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 13:20:44 GMT
Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership. He is objectively reporting what theistic evolutionists believe and not agreeing with them. There isn't a person on this board with a better understanding of evolution than Geode now that Redruth does not post here. He has for years challenged theistic evolutionists and bettered them in past debates. Whatever happened to Redruth? She knew far more about evolution than me as she actually worked as a life scientist with genetic studies. She was very up to date.
My disagreements in the past were mainly with Young Earth Creationists, and often about the reasons that geology shows us that our planet is very old. Most Theistic Evolutionists accept the findings of evolutionary scientists and geologists about the age of our world. In discussions with YEC they usually seem to be of the same thinking as those making arguments from a non-religious point of view, especially if human evolution is not part of the topic. They will differ at that point in that most of them think evolution had a purpose, and God directed it to produce man in His own image.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 13:26:34 GMT
He is objectively reporting what theistic evolutionists believe and not agreeing with them. There isn't a person on this board with a better understanding of evolution than Geode now that Redruth does not post here. He has for years challenged theistic evolutionists and bettered them in past debates. Whatever happened to Redruth? She knew far more about evolution than me as she actually worked as a life scientist with genetic studies. She was very up to date.
My disagreements in the past were mainly with Young Earth Creationists, and often about the reasons that geology shows us that our planet is very old. Most Theistic Evolutionists accept the findings of evolutionary scientists and geologists about the age of our world. In discussions with YEC they usually seem to be of the same thinking as those making arguments from a non-religious point of view, especially if human evolution is not part of the topic. They will differ at that point in that most of them think evolution had a purpose, and God directed it to produce man in His own image.
Yeah, she was one of the scientists who posted on this/old board. She did have an excellent and deep knowledge of the subject. She did switch over here and made around 100 posts but was less active. She last logged in on 4th June 2018. I will pm her and check if she is alright and whether she will return to the board or not. |
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 13:52:05 GMT
"Arlon: 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property.
Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't?"
[1] Because in the actual scripture Jacob has no clue about genetics. He believes that the reason for the coloring of sheep and goats is due to poles he places in front of them when they are breeding.
"People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads."
[2] I made no comments whatsoever about the education of "religious" people versus those who are not in terms of their education. I am not aware of any "attitude" that I have adopted, as my comments are only about the facts of the matter. Darwin and Mendel did independent study that ended up meshing perfectly together. "Notice the many surveys in other threads." Sorry, what is this supposed to mean? This last sentence seems to be an unrelated and aimless thought.
"How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment."
[3] This sentence basically says nothing and adds nothing to discussion.
"The notion that 'creationism' and 'evolution' are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either."
"I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries."
You did? Where? You did nothing of the kind in this thread. [4] You have not made any case for these claims.
Arlon: 6. "Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that."
"Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything."
Another non-answer, all you do is make a pretentious claim that I am wrong and then make no case at all for this being the case.[5] If consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that I am mistaken about this, cite one or two.
[1] No, he did not place spotted bark in front of sheep when they were breeding. He placed spotted bark in the watering troughs so that the sheep would associate spots with refreshment. Pavlov experimented with dogs and their propensity to associate one thing with another. After the sheep associated spots with refreshment they decided the spotted males were preferable. Once again you have shown that you are the one here who failed science. [2] You did indeed fail to see that religious people understood genetics long before Darwin, and still because of your incompetence fail to see it. [3] It highlights your misperception, evident throughout your comments, of the history of genetic knowledge. [4] I did here. You continue to refuse to see it. [5] All, that means including every last one, of the experiments on RNA chains show that they obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus do not (cannot) assemble long chains of RNA. "No, he did not place spotted bark in front of sheep when they were breeding. He placed spotted bark in the watering troughs so that the sheep would associate spots with refreshment. Pavlov experimented with dogs and their propensity to associate one thing with another. After the sheep associated spots with refreshment they decided the spotted males were preferable. Once again you have shown that you are the one here who failed science."
Genesis 30
37 So Jacob cut green branches from poplar, almond, and plane trees and peeled off some of the bark so that the branches had white stripes on them.
38 He put the ·branches in front of the flocks at the watering places. When the animals came to drink, they also mated there
39 so the flocks mated in front of the branches. Then the young that were born were streaked, speckled, or spotted.
40 Jacob separated the young animals from the others, and he made them face the streaked and dark animals in Laban’s flock. Jacob kept his animals separate from Laban’s.
41 When the stronger animals in the flock were mating, Jacob put the branches before their eyes so they would mate near the branches.
42 But when the weaker animals mated, Jacob did not put the branches there. So the animals born from the weaker animals were Laban’s, and those born from the stronger animals were Jacob’s.
43 In this way Jacob became very rich. He had large flocks, many male and female servants, camels, and donkeys.
So scripture tells that Jacob thought the branches would have a supernatural effect. They were striped so as to induce the births of striped animals.
Verse 41 has nothing at all to do with watering places, showing your interpretation to be wrong. I doubt that sheep and goats needed any reminder that water refreshes, but thanks for the loopy thought and your fumbling attempt to sound like you understand science.
"You did indeed fail to see that religious people understood genetics long before Darwin, and still because of your incompetence fail to see it." Come on, just saying "Yes you did" is not a worthy rebuttal from even a five year old.
"It highlights your misperception, evident throughout your comments, of the history of genetic knowledge."
What is evident is that my knowledge of genetics, as limited as it might be, is greater than your own. But once again you have added nothing to your rebuttal except to to make a board statement that I am wrong. So where was I wrong...specifically?
"I did here. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. link
You continue to refuse to see it."
Because you really have made no argument. You throw out statement about artificial selection as if they prove that does involved with it understand genetics. Just discovering by observation that the odds of getting black sheep from breeding them with other black sheep does not show much more than a superficial knowledge of genetics. You seem to think it equals that of modern scientists working in genetics. Are you serious, or just trying out a standup comedy act where your parody a creationist?
"All, that means including every last one, of the experiments on RNA chains show that they obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus do not (cannot) assemble long chains of RNA."
So you are a creationist. Nobody else would make this argument. But this was not even what your brought up earlier. You were talking about inorganic molecules and now you have thrown that out the window. Why, because it was not even pertinent to evolution?
I asked for citations, not your loopy attempt at describing physics. The simple answer to garbled statements such as this by creationists is to point out that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics relates to systems that are closed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 12, 2019 14:19:25 GMT
[nothing worth repeating] Bible translations vary but all of them, including yours, show that Jacob used the same science Pavlov did, although with a different purpose. Your failure to understand science and almost everything else is remarkable. At one time many people held the same views you do on evolution and abiogenesis, but they are too poorly informed of science and religion and their numbers are rapidly dropping. Too many people get their idea of science from Democrats. Too many people get their idea of religion from Republicans. That's neither science nor religion. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jan 12, 2019 14:24:16 GMT
School. I don't recall my teacher or grade level. But it never even occurred to me to question creation. Never saw why evolution couldn't have just been God's method of creation. I'm Catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jan 12, 2019 14:28:53 GMT
[nothing worth repeating] Your failure to understand science and almost everything else is remarkable. At one time many people held the same views you do on evolution and abiogenesis, but they are too poorly informed of science and religion and their numbers are rapidly dropping. Too many people get their idea of science from Democrats. Too many people get their idea of religion from Republicans. That's neither science nor religion. That's a very lazy and sloppy job, Arlon. He elaborated on all his points and you were unable to counter any of his arguments. You just replied in one sentence that "he failed to understand science." You could have explained how his points were incorrect. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 12, 2019 14:49:48 GMT
Your failure to understand science and almost everything else is remarkable. At one time many people held the same views you do on evolution and abiogenesis, but they are too poorly informed of science and religion and their numbers are rapidly dropping. Too many people get their idea of science from Democrats. Too many people get their idea of religion from Republicans. That's neither science nor religion. Arlon. He elaborated on all points and you didn' counter anything except by one sentence that failed to understand science. You could have explained how his points were incorrect. Geode asked what happened to RedRuth1966. Maybe she is a real scientist who doesn't want to lose her job by supporting a bunch of silly kid atheists playing on the internet. No real scientist would dare deny my scientific claims for fear of losing his or her job. I made good arguments more than once. You need to read them, lazy bones. The problem is on your end. |
|
