Does Common Descent Follow Logically From Darwin's Four Postulates?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Eugene Shubert, May 10, 2017.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    There is no scientific evidence for an "infinite Christ."
    There is no scientific evidence that supernatural entities influence physics.

    So those two axioms conflict with scientific understanding of the universe.

    But like I said, good start. Fix those three, and you will fix the inconsistencies between the Millerites and science.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,289
    I understand there is respectable school of theological thought that God upholds the order in nature.

    According to this view, He does not need to tinker with the laws of nature or override them, in order for His creation to produce everything we see, including life and humanity. He creates all this by upholding the order and that is sufficient.

    I find this a reasonable approach.
     
  8. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    You're fooling yourself. Established science has no explanation for the cause of quantum events. Mainstream theory strongly asserts the nonexistence of mechanistic causes and the sole certainty underlying reality being the existence of probability amplitudes.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    No, you asked what was inconsistent about science, Jesus and the axioms. I listed three inconsistencies between the axioms and science. (But don't worry too much about that; all religions have significant inconsistencies between their axioms and science.)
    Nor is there any evidence for an omniscient, omnipotent creator who influences such events. Thus, a belief that "God did it" is not scientific. (Or to be more accurate, is as scientific as "the Easter Bunny did it" or "leprechauns did it.")
     
  10. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Indisputably, you're not qualified to talk about the foundations of physics and The Fundamental Axioms of Seventh-day Millerites, Circa 2017.

    "All of science is uncertain and subject to revision. The glory of science is to imagine more than we can prove." - Freeman Dyson.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    And there is no question that you are not qualified to talk about the science of evolution, since you misunderstand much of the basic science - but you do so. Which is what this forum is for.
    Very true. The job of scientists is to push those limits.
     
  12. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    All science is either physics or stamp collecting. Charles Darwin, the foremost creator of "just-so stories," was a stamp collector.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    OK. In that case, so was Watson, Crick, Pasteur, Fermat, Pauling, Fibonacci, Nobel, Fleming, Watt, Skinner, Pythagoras, Mendel, Leeuwenhoek, Hooke, Descartes and Bernoulli. I have a feeling Darwin would be proud to be counted among such "stamp collectors."
     
  14. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    Was it Watson or Crick, Darwin's co-creator of evolutionism, that was the spiritualist?

    "Biologists think they are biochemists,
    Biochemists think they are physical chemists,
    Physical chemists think they are physicists,
    Physicists think they are gods,
    And God thinks he is a Mathematician."
     
  15. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    "Physicists defer only to mathematicians, and mathematicians defer only to God."
     
  16. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    No, Darwin was a physicist. Evolution is nuclear physics on a biological scale.
     
  17. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    What standards of evidence do you use to evaluate the supernatural claims of Jesus? Certainly not scientific ones, since the only evidence is a book.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    In his defense, he did not claim any supernatural attributes for Jesus in that post. There's no conflict inherent in believing that Christ existed and that science is valid, just as there is no conflict inherent in believing that Joseph Smith existed and that science is valid.

    (Of course, that could change quickly.)
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    He doesn't just believe Jesus existed. Even atheists can grant that possibility. Where's the scientifically rigorous evidence of anything more than that? Jesus said unambiguously he would return in a generation and failed. Christianity should have properly ended there. But, unlike in science, Christians just multiplied their assumptions to justify a predetermined conclusion. If you tried that in science, you would be rightly dismissed.
     
  20. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    The conflict is evident in the cowardice of Darwinists to freely acknowledge the dark side of the spiritualistic leanings of evolutionism's co-creator and their complete unfamiliarity with the power and presence of the Holy Spirit.
     
  21. Eugene Shubert Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    979
    That's a very important puzzle. Thanks for mentioning it. It is permissible to answer that challenge and to affirm that Seventh-day Millerites have a God-given revelation that resolves that allegedly unanswerable mystery? http://everythingimportant.org/3scenarios
     
  22. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,730
    I couldn't give a shit if Darwin sacrificed infants to Moloch, it says nothing about the essential truth of his theory. So far your only refutation is a thought experiment that bears no relation to the math of probability.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,718
    Your sad (and sadly predictable) attempt at a personal attack aside, there is no conflict between spiritualism and science. It's only when you get into supernatural omniscient/omnipotent beings that there becomes a conflict.
     

Share This Page