I think you are unreachable. Someone else may have a different opinion, and that person, if any, is welcome to try.
4 Likes
I mentioned to mercer about the ludicrousness of the idea that bio complexity of even an eye finds its foundation on mutations. Thats an oxymoron-complex mutation. Anyway, i got to thinking- what about the simple bone structure we call the eye socket. Did one of the mutations that met with the fleshy eyeball construction team meet with the mutation that met with the bony eyeball socket team and they had a huddle. Put their minds together for the formulation of their symbiotic parts for a perfect fit… then…this is the good part… put their hands on top of one another they counted, “1, 2, 3, GO TEAM.” And i am to believe they guy on this good video who says, “Naturalistic universal common decent is no longer considered just a theory-it is a fact.”
Go team!
What is so hard to understand about a few simple ideas?
- Not all creatures in a species are identical. Some are born with variations which allow them a better chance to survive than others
- The ones with the better chance to survive and reproduce do so (on average) more than their neighbors so the variation which gave them the advantage spreads through the population and becomes the norm.
- Repeat the cycle each generation for 3.8+ billion years
I can point you to some very simplified layman’s explanations with pretty pictures and all but you still first have to want to learn
2 Likes
Then why did you write that it is?
Bc the combination of selecting from a 100% random event of a genetic mutation is 100% random. And we do see some mutations being selected that may stay within the population that dont harm or hurt the organism and is irrelevant to its survival…but you are a smart person: does that seem like a mechanism worthy of responsibility for complex body forms? Really…i mean think past all of those classes you have taken where darwin was enthroned as king. Is it really?
So if I deal you a poker hand and allow you to select 3 cards to discard and to draw 3 new cards, you would decline, as the resulting hand would still be 100% random and the probability of a hand that beats mine could not possibly increase?
Can we play some high-stakes 5-card draw sometime soon? I’ll select (discard) and you won’t, and we’ll see who wins.
I don’t think you’ve seen any of the evidence.
Yes, but then I do medical research.
Really. I didn’t take any classes in which Darwin was treated as a king. And I’ve done almost 40 years of research, medical research. That’s where my understanding of evolution comes from.
Did you know that Peaceful Evolution devotes considerable time to the idea that God expressed His designs for the evolution of primates via the Evolutionary process.
You seem to think @swamidass is not a Christian thinker.
I first want to learn who you are Tim Horton. I will learn a whole lot more when i discover how you really believe “the creatures in a species” got there in the first place. Are you one of those who believes that the bony eye socket mutation team had a huddle w the fleshly eye structure mutation team and ended it w a cheer?
I definately do not believe that the earth is billions of yrs old. Ever read Kurt Wise’s book “Faith, Form and Time?” And i definately definately do not believe that your model of billions of years of selection of mutations explains irreducible complexity. Mutation and lots of time is a recipe for extinction, or a bio machine never getting off the ground, not bio forms that have the appearance of perfect design! Think about the nervous system in a human body alone with the brain as its foundation. I took a college class by a NASA advisor/ Miami prof called physiological psychology which delved into the depths of complexity of our nervous system. The prof was an atheist. But for me as a Christian sophomore even amidst his God bashing and talk of evolution, this class was like the most beautiful Haleluia chorus you have ever heard that was illumination the gracious hand of God! The nervous system includes safety mechanisms where it causes the thigh muscle to give out to eliminate furthering injury during an ankle sprain. Is this the result of mutation? No stinkin way. That is the result of God’s direct construction.
You are so enamored with the idea of big amounts of time being a friend of your evolution. Have you ever given time to think about how God has always existed? Have you ever given a thought to the possibility that your science today may only hit a fraction of a percentage of the essence needed to form atoms, and molecules and genes, and complex forms…all from nothing? Mass energy had a starting point you know…
Are YOU willing to learn?
Not sure how you came up w the labeling system on this site, but it as well as the semantics out from the unlabled contributors who are pro evolution thinkers are depicting a slant away from the God of Scripture, and not towards. This is why there are many of us who are anticipating the publication of Swamidass literature to see if it really passes the smell test that either truely honors God and His true involvement as Creator or if it sours His Name by putting Him on the back seat behind nature.
Guess what Greg - no one in science cares one iota what a scientifically illiterate Creationist believes. People here are offering to teach you evolutionary basics but you refuse to learn. Doesn’t bother me at all if you choose to stay willfully ignorant your whole life.
Sorry I don’t give out my personal information. I’ve already explained why.
2 Likes
Medical research does not make one eligible of determining if neo darwinian is true, does it? Let me ask you this: If you were an outspoken proponent of ID and were outspoken about how neo darwinian evolution has some serious flaws, how hard would it be to land a job at one of the many universities in this country? Yes, the darwin cult has science depts across the world under its spell. Do you disagree?
Ok Mr. Tim. I may be ignorant on some things, but im not stupid. (Im not at all ignorant about evolution) Give me the choice between micky and minny mouse waiving a wand and wala: life! … Or energy taking a bacterium and selection of genetic mutations resulting in peacocks, oak trees, giraffes and whales and i promise you that i side w disney. The belief of naturalistic universal common decent evolution is just a small step away from the irrationality found in someone who is a staunch believer that a Creator does not exist. Where associating God w the majority of the naturalistic model is even more of an insult to the intelligence and rationale of a person who understands both the physical world and Christian theology, on the other hand, God creating “kinds” fully developed as per design to adapt and speciate the planet is quite pleasing to both rationale and theology. Good evening Mr. Tim.
How fascinating, @Greg
You think God is being put in the back seat, when he uses nature to make his creations?
Could you please explain these 2 lines in Genesis… or, rather, these 2 couplets of 2 lines each! They sound JUST LIKE what @swamidass says when he says God can use miracles, and God can use non-miracles:
Genesis 1:20-21
And God said, Let The Waters bring forth … the moving creature … and fowl …
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which The Waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind…
Genesis 1:24-25
And God said, Let The Earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth…
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind…
Now look at these curiosities, @Greg
Not just ONCE, but TWICE, God empowered the natural world he created to make his creations manifest!
He says: “Let The Waters” bring forth the moving creatures…" And he says “Let The Earth bring forth the living creatures…” And then in a doublet, each time after invoking The Earth or The Waters to bring forth the creations he wants, the text then repeats itself… pointing out that God did these things … so there is no confusion in anyone’s mind that God does these things through miraculous and non-miraculous methods.
And yet, amazingly enough, @greg, you don’t seem to grasp this approach. God makes it rain in the Bible. Do you think all the rain storms on Earth are the personal and special miracles of God? Or do you think God uses Evaporation and Condensation as His servants to accomplish his will?
But ultimately, @greg, the problem is not so much your inability to accept this… it is your inability to give @Swamidass the respect of offering your analysis of his work.
You come here… and you plunk yourself down on a tree trunk somewhere, and you argue about Evolution as “purely random”, and without God’s guidance… as though this is what Joshua is teaching.
That’s not very polite of you, Greg. Joshua is not teaching Evolution as randomness… and he is not teaching Evolution as being devoid of God and his presence.
So… why don’t you step up to the podium and get with the program, okay?
You have been notified… Joshua is not teaching Godless or Random Evolution. And if I find that you are rejecting my advise to you to start discussing Joshua’s positions (and not the positions of random Atheists and Agnostics here), I will be delighted to flag each thread you produce that is about randomness and godlessness.
I think you may have noticed that Atheists are not exactly the best people to talk to about Christianity and how Christianity can find its expression in some science methods.
These points you keep criticizing are not Joshua’s talking points. And the idea that you want to exploit Joshua’s platform here and attack positions that aren’t even his … well… that’s just not very nice, nor is it acceptable.
2 Likes
From what you’ve shown here you don’t even have an elementary school level understanding of the topic. There are two gentlemen named Dr. Dunning and Dr. Kruger who may have an interest in your case however.
2 Likes
Firstly gbrooks. How are you to lecture me about Scripture when you are a purported universalist. Can you explain because perhaps your description is inaccurate.
Secondly, i have had direct discourse w swamidass on this site early on and his views have been all over the spectrum of the evolutionary theory. So i have no idea where he is at these days. Words are powerful and any attempt to debunk Genesis via naturalism is to give the perception in peoples minds that the Christian faith goes into the garbage heap. At the onset of this site, it welcommed all voices. Then ID was getting the shaft just like they did at Biologos. Then Swamidass was like, yeah naturalistic evolution and God dwells within nature thus making it of God. But that is a different religion and not becomming of Christianity, which perhaps you are happy to accept as a universalist. I am not happy bc man is stained w sin and needs the true God as His Savior.
So correct me here gbrooks. Are you what they say you are? And are you guys still sticking to the biologos model of naturalistic universal common decent where God and nature are one, thus claiming that this form is of God? Please correct me. You wanted peace, and peace comes when we rest upon hope in God’s truth, not peace as in acceptance and toleration of many views.
Cmon. There are hundreds of PhD scientists who understand the nitty gritty details of your stance that are in complete disagreement with it. Are they also elementary? And many of those are repentent evolutionists who are leaning towards the ID side. Are you going to stick your tongue out at me and tell me that your dad can beat up my dad?
If a man is making an error, what kind of a Unitarian Universalist would I be to let you keep making the same mistakes. I didn’t challenge your Faith, dear sir. I challenged your wisdom, grace and your manners.
You write: “Secondly, i have had direct discourse w swamidass on this site early on and his views have been all over the spectrum of the evolutionary theory. So i have no idea where he is at these days.”
Not only is this utter balderdash, it is as though you are deliberately trolling Joshua. I have had plenty of discussions with Joshua since his days at BioLogos, and I can’t name a single substantive point that he has changed his position about. The most I have seen him do is (like many of us), evolve in better ways to describe or present his views. His positions have been unwavering.
@Greg, I have no idea what you THINK BioLogos is. Joshua is pretty adamant that he does not share some key views. And I would agree with him. I couldn’t find anyone willing to embrace God as Designer at BioLogos… but just to be clear, I don’t embrace God as Designer in the ID sense…
My position is God is Designer because of my Faith… not because Science has convinced me of it. So I help you can understand that distinction.
You don’t seem at all apologetic for your behavior… but I can promise many flags if you keep attacking Evolution as Godless, as though that is what Peaceful Science is about!
But @Greg, the difference between you and them is that you are more or less incapable of re-stating your opposition’s position. It’s like Evolution is some alien world that somebody told you about … and you can’t even imagine what it looks like.
I’m hoping you eventually take some remedial action on learning the basic premises of a topic that you have invested an awful lot of your life and energy opposing - - without understanding it.
@Timothy_Horton, I’ll let you know if and when the folks here at Peaceful have to “lock him up” temporarily.
2 Likes
But almost none are biologists, and every last one does so because of their religious beliefs, not because of any scientific evidence.
Because of your silly science-free blithering? Nope, just going to point and laugh. 
3 Likes
Nah, let him keep posting his drivel. People like him do more to discredit Creationist anti-science that a dozen published Nature papers. 
2 Likes