Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Where the greater part of the evidence indicates...eg: the discovery of the CMBR, saw the BB model arise from the multitude of other hypothesis, like Steady State and Oscillating.

Wise, in his own words, rejects the science.
The facts are, that science has brought our knowledge from the ancient times when we saw deities in mountains, the Sun, and the Moon, to being able to confidently relate the whole history of the universe, back to at least t=10-43 seconds, making any deity or ID superfluous at best.
And cosmology also has some reasonable speculation on that unknown quantum/Planck era.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why do some here reject the Big Bang, when it is Majority of Scientific Opinion?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I apologize, because I think I misunderstood you, because I thought you were saying before, that you could not evaluate the evidence for yourself, but now you are kind of saying that you can?

Which is really Great!!!

So why can’t you also evaluate the arguments presented by Dr. Kurt Wise in his lectures?

You are really smart, so why can’t you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not sure...some have agenda's...religious or perhaps as per one particular individual, just anti mainstream science.....the crux of the matter is that it is still overwhelmingly supported, and one of the reasons being how it fits in so snugly with GR.

I know enough to get by. The rest I certainly take on reputability etc. We all do. We all take things on reputation and reputability.
The theory of evolution has reached the stage where it is fact.
Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer.

 

I did not Claim that I was perfect, Beer did.
You are correct, I am absolutely not perfect.


And your description above fits the Genesis Account kind of pretty well.

In the Genesis Account, God declared that His Creation was “Good” or “Very Good”!

He never claimed that it was “Perfect”.

He never designed it to be, or ever intended for it to be “Perfect”. Why would He do that?

Who told you that He did?

And additionally, some, not all, but some of the imperfections we see in Creation today, are likely the results of Genetic Corruption and Genetic Dilution, as I have proposed before.

 

The Steady State Model was also “fact” once upon a time.

 

No it never was, sorry about that. In the fifities when I was a hairy arse teenager, it was in competition with the BB, and Oscillating models...with no solid evidence to promote any as outstanding, although even then, the BB was the most popular of the three.
Then Penzias and Wilson serendipitiously discovered the CMBR. That saw the BB gain prominence.

But again, you seem to have forgotten what many have told you.
Scientific theories are not models of proof...they are our best models at any particular time, but obviously do gain in certainty the more they match observational and experimental data.
Science is always open for change. Over the last century and a bit, Einstein and SR and GR, have changed our picture of the universe.

 

Thank You!

I stand, sit, sleep, and eat turkey, corrected!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did you watch the video? Do you understand the arguments presented by Wise? Since, you have made it abundantly clear you have no understanding of science, let alone any theories or laws it may have discovered, it's highly unlikely you have any clue what Wise is saying.

 

Yes, I have a disconnect, in my mind on that particular point.

Because Science seems Dogmatic to me, very much like a Religion, and not open to change, perhaps singularly, on the subject of Evolution.

And I do agree that Micro-Evolution is certainly real.

I just don’t think that it can explain everything we see. I think that it results in the corruption of the genetic code over time, and eventually in extinction of the species. I do not see how a process which is a destroyer, which breaks down code, can build more sophisticated code over time.

I might explain the problem with the following illustration ...

Let’s say I were to show up at a building construction site with a Crain and Wrecking Ball and say, let’s build this sky scraper with this particular tool.

Micro within a Species is obvious and proven, my 3 Son’s and I all look different, done.

Macro on the other hand has never been proven as “fact” and is only speculation based on faulty and stretched reasoning.

It remains faith. And I don’t believe in it.

You do.

Which is completely fine with me, and is what I appreciate, because I believe in the freedom of investigation and decision.

I have no need, for anyone to agree with me.

 

You have no clue what you're talking about, so it's easy to not agree with you. It would be like trying to agree or disagree with a babbling toddler.

 

Cool!

My Claim:
Evolution breaks down and dilutes genetic code over time.

You are welcome to disagree!

 

Why would I do that

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're just babbling incoherent nonsense, Mr. Toddler.

 

Scientists are human. A theory that might have been successful, and well accommodated, will never be easy to let go. Any new model surpassing it, needs to run the gauntlet so to speak.
BTW, Einstein's SR/GR did not have that much objection and was accepted in pretty short time frame. The other point is that SR/GR did not invalidate Newtonian per se, but simply gave a more accurate, extensive model by which scientists were able to work and make predictions.

Like you have said many times...that's your choice, but it is not the scientific choice guided by data and logical reason. It is a choice inhibited by your fear in the finality of death, and the cold uncaring nature of the universe we inhabit.

 

The subject of Evolution has seen more and greater changes in its scientific formulation and analysis, not to mention basic Theory and an already extraordinary breadth of application, than almost any other.

That's been an interesting and attractive topic of research for a few decades now, and some results are in.
One of the earliest findings was that your thinking there is mistaken. Biological evolution does not, in general, do that.

We know it does not do that, in general, because we observe the many tens of thousands of organisms that have evolved and are evolving all around us without going extinct - often, in fact, spreading and prospering due to their newly evolved capabilities. You can make such observations for yourself, easily, in well studied and significant categories such as human disease organisms - the malaria parasite, for example, is famous for both rapid evolution and not going extinct.

(A recent issue of Science magazine carried an article addressing one aspect of this possibility of genetic corruption from a theoretical point of view, and reported some advances in determining the theoretical conditions under which corrupting evolutionary changes would be more likely to clear than accumulate - it's an interesting read, for those interested).

Unfortunately, you appear to have no need for observation and experiment to agree with you either.

 

You said "Since you are perfect, Macro-Evolution is Impossible."

So either you think people are perfect and evolution is impossible, or you don't think people are perfect, and evolution is definitely possible. Let's see:

COOL! So evolution, no matter what word you put in front of it, is possible. You are making progress!

Nope. They are the result of LACK of genetic dilution.

Know why we have back problems? Because we once walked on all fours, and a lot of our locomotion was through trees. Our backs, hands and feet were optimized by evolution for that. Then we started walking upright. Evolution is now re-optimizing our back. But evolution never achieves perfection; it merely achieves "good enough." And when our backs reached the point that we could reproduce and raise kids before our backs gave out, it was done with us.

If a flying squirrel can evolve a new wing bone in a million years, it can evolve a whole wing in a hundred million. The only difference is time.

Saying"macro evolution" is different than "micro evolution" is like claiming that you believe micro erosion can create gullies in your yard in a week, but you don't believe macro evolution can create the Grand Canyon in six million years. That is a simple failure of ability to extrapolate.

Excellent example. The best you could do is to build a 3000 foot high pile of debris; it might take 1000 years. But at the end of that time you'd have a 3000 foot tall structure. Is that ideal? Not at all. Does it meet the goal of 'scraping the sky?' Better than any skyscraper does today.

Evolution does not create elegant solutions, or perfect solutions, or even good solutions. It just creates solutions that work.

That's not evolution, micro or otherwise. That's diploid sexual reproduction. If two of your sons died due to a genetic defect they inherited, but the third one survived and did not have it - THAT would be an example of evolution. (Fortunately that did not happen.)

We have observed it happening. We see it happening in living organisms and we can read the evolution of species from fossil records. We have proven that it happens - by watching.

 

And your evidence is that . . . you are allowed to post here?

You might want to re-think that.

Nope. Unlike the Church, science does not execute people for having heretical ideas. Everyone is allowed to try to prove their case. If they succeed, great. If they fail, their ideas are not heeded.

 

For the same reason that "atlas" means a book of maps. It does not mean that the Greek god Atlas really exists.
For the same reason that "cloth" means a woven material. It does not mean that Clotho, the youngest of the Three Fates, spins a fabric that determines the entire course of your life.
For the same reason that "chronology" means a timeline of events. It does not mean that the Greek god Chronos, god of time, really exists.
For the same reason that "erotic" means of a sexual nature. It does not mean that the Greek god Eros really exists.

Unless you believe all those Gods (and one Fate) really exist? After all, those words exist! PROOF!!!!!!!!

 

OK?

So you really are saying that China knowingly chose to base their own national written language characters on what they knew were, the fictitious, made up fantasy stories of another very obscure and tiny culture, a small sect of the Jews, who lived in obscurity hundreds of miles away!

That is.......... actually......... unbelievable!!!

And... I don’t have enough faith to believe that!!!