Darwin Evolution VS Genesis Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe. But the premise of fullfilling away majestic laws which turn humanity is a failed experiment. Christianity and Islam have lost their battle with the Hebrew bible - only this is impossible to acknowledge. The first two of the 10 commandments are manifest scientific premises which have never been disproven or indicated as incorrect - it needs no embellishings. But when Jerusalem was destroyed - the world turned astray, thinking all roads lead to Rome. But Rome is dead.
I don't understand what you mean by Catholics making "the Creator a cursory afterthought". Also, what do you mean by "Their only interest is manipulating everything to align it with the Gospels". Can you dilate on these a bit?

You may or may not have been Catholic, but nonetheless, my botany textbook stated that Charles Darwin "to his death believed in a Divine Creator". I believe that evolution is how we got here, and God is why we are here. Neither the scientific community nor the Church has any rules against that. Remember, Catholics are NOT fundamentalists.
 
I don't understand what you mean by Catholics making "the Creator a cursory afterthought".

Christians, although their belief is genuine - as is all humanity's beliefs - appears to not be able to believe in the creator without referring to a local figurehead it sees as the one and all. This even when christianinity sees its lord as a son - the father is still never in the radar and hardly ever mentioned.

This syndrome of forgetting/casting away the father of creation is seen all over the place - even in the trinity and the fullfilling away of the world's most majestic laws. In a sense the doctrines of the Gospels have put christians in a straight jacket and emersed them in quicksand - its like if they address the father they cannot maintain ther beliefs anymore. But because christians have taken on board the Hebrew bible - there is an obligation to remind them to remember the ONE Creator without embellishments.

Its as if I am saying some terrible here but really the reverse applies - the antithetical position of the first two laws of the 10C's is what severed Christianity from its mother religion, as well as from logic, science, history, geography and math. It is perhaps the greatest enigma in human history how such a situation could ever result, notwithstanding it became the world's greatest religion. I blame Rome and the Hellenists for the Gospels - it could never have emerged from Jews in a pink fit. And no Christian will accept this - same as no Muslim will accept anything said by Christianity: this alone says at least one of these big fat belief systems numbering in the Billion is 100% wrong. Chaos encounters of the first kind? :shrug:


Also, what do you mean by "Their only interest is manipulating everything to align it with the Gospels". Can you dilate on these a bit?

There are millions of Christians who see Isaiah as great only because they thought it connected with the Gospels. This is true even after a host of great christian scholars finally agreed this is a totally misrepresented and manipulated distortion. What does it say of the gospel writers? :shrug:

You may or may not have been Catholic, but nonetheless, my botany textbook stated that Charles Darwin "to his death believed in a Divine Creator". I believe that evolution is how we got here, and God is why we are here. Neither the scientific community nor the Church has any rules against that. Remember, Catholics are NOT fundamentalists.

You are correct. Evolution is nothing more than the wiring in a construct of creation, and evolution was introduced to humanity in its correct protocol and placement not by Darwin but in Genesis. Darwin merely saw these forces at work and shouted Eureka - no Creator! That is like saying a car's manual proves there is no car maker. Does not the reverse apply!?

Darwin totally [stupidly!] even ignored the seed factor and the critical seperation of the elements [listed in Genesis] as the pre-requisite anticipatory factors which made life possible. As if evolution can subsist without those factors! :shrug:
 
Christians, although their belief is genuine - as is all humanity's beliefs - appears to not be able to believe in the creator without referring to a local figurehead it sees as the one and all. This even when christianinity sees its lord as a son - the father is still never in the radar and hardly ever mentioned.

This syndrome of forgetting/casting away the father of creation is seen all over the place - even in the trinity and the fullfilling away of the world's most majestic laws. In a sense the doctrines of the Gospels have put christians in a straight jacket and emersed them in quicksand - its like if they address the father they cannot maintain ther beliefs anymore. But because christians have taken on board the Hebrew bible - there is an obligation to remind them to remember the ONE Creator without embellishments.

Its as if I am saying some terrible here but really the reverse applies - the antithetical position of the first two laws of the 10C's is what severed Christianity from its mother religion, as well as from logic, science, history, geography and math. It is perhaps the greatest enigma in human history how such a situation could ever result, notwithstanding it became the world's greatest religion. I blame Rome and the Hellenists for the Gospels - it could never have emerged from Jews in a pink fit. And no Christian will accept this - same as no Muslim will accept anything said by Christianity: this alone says at least one of these big fat belief systems numbering in the Billion is 100% wrong. Chaos encounters of the first kind? :shrug:




There are millions of Christians who see Isaiah as great only because they thought it connected with the Gospels. This is true even after a host of great christian scholars finally agreed this is a totally misrepresented and manipulated distortion. What does it say of the gospel writers? :shrug:



You are correct. Evolution is nothing more than the wiring in a construct of creation, and evolution was introduced to humanity in its correct protocol and placement not by Darwin but in Genesis. Darwin merely saw these forces at work and shouted Eureka - no Creator! That is like saying a car's manual proves there is no car maker. Does not the reverse apply!?

Darwin totally [stupidly!] even ignored the seed factor and the critical seperation of the elements [listed in Genesis] as the pre-requisite anticipatory factors which made life possible. As if evolution can subsist without those factors! :shrug:

Thank you for explaining. Please follow thislink (read section 64)
 
If you want to talk specifically about evolution then all you need are 3 rules (or functions if you prefer):

1) Replication of the selected with inheritance
2) Variation with replication
3) Selection of the variation with competition

Note that Variation does not have to be random variation, it can be deterministic variation and that Selection does not have to be from within the system, but can be imposed from outside the system (this is usually called artificial selection as opposed to natural selection).

These 3 very simple rules are all that is needed to produce evolution. These 3 rules can be encoded into a Turing Machine. Turing machines are an abstract concept that mathematically encapsulate certain functions. As long as the hardware they are implemented on can perform those functions, then any combination of those functions (algorithm) is allowed.

This means that Turing machines are "hardware independent" and that if two turning machines can perform the same basic functions, than an algorithm designed for one of them can be (with some degree of modification) be adapted to run on the other.

So all that is needed to prove evolution must be true is to show that living systems can perform the 3 functions needed for evolution and that they are arranged in the correct algorithm.

So:
- Do living systems replicate with inheritance: yes
- Do living systems have variation from generation to generation: yes
- Do living systems show selection with competition: yes
- Do these functions exist in the correct order to create the algorithm: yes.

In other words: Evolution of living systems is a mathematical fact.

It can also be mathematically shown that the algorithm of evolution has the property of complexity from simple systems (ie: the 3 rules in that algorithm).

****
For an interesting example of a universal Turing machine, see Conway's Game of Life
 
Darwin totally [stupidly!] even ignored the seed factor and the critical seperation of the elements
Yes, and Newton totally and stupidly ignored the cause of gravity, instead saying he had no explanation for it.
It's a good thing there are people like you around to point out the flaws...

/sarcasm
 
Its as if I am saying some terrible here but really the reverse applies - the antithetical position of the first two laws of the 10C's is what severed Christianity from its mother religion, as well as from logic, science, history, geography and math. It is perhaps the greatest enigma in human history how such a situation could ever result, notwithstanding it became the world's greatest religion. I blame Rome and the Hellenists for the Gospels - it could never have emerged from Jews in a pink fit. And no Christian will accept this - same as no Muslim will accept anything said by Christianity: this alone says at least one of these big fat belief systems numbering in the Billion is 100% wrong. Chaos encounters of the first kind? :shrug:

Fascinatingly bizarre. Could you go over this without reference to evolution so I'm not logically obligated to verbally kick you in the balls?

You are correct. Evolution is nothing more than the wiring in a construct of creation, and evolution was introduced to humanity in its correct protocol and placement not by Darwin but in Genesis. Darwin merely saw these forces at work and shouted Eureka - no Creator! That is like saying a car's manual proves there is no car maker. Does not the reverse apply!?

No. I recommend The Blind Watchmaker.

Darwin totally [stupidly!] even ignored the seed factor and the critical seperation of the elements [listed in Genesis] as the pre-requisite anticipatory factors which made life possible. As if evolution can subsist without those factors! :shrug:

"Seed factor"?

http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/SEED_factor

"Subsist"?

"Elements"? As in the Grecian?
 
Conflicts Between Science and Religion

c. Darwin and Evolution

A third battle between science and religion developed over the theories of Charles Darwin. Like the debates over heliocentrism and mechanism, the debate over evolution can be understood in a less rhetorically charged way than it is usually presented. One assumption that drove the initial resistance to Darwinism is the belief that no species can mutate into a different species. This doctrine, known as the fixity of species, was based on uniform observations, and no experimental or observational evidence was known to contradict it. Instead, it had always been the believed that “like produces like.¨ That is, chickens, when they reproduce, make chickens, bats make bats, and cucumbers make more cucumbers.

Scripture seemed to support this everyday observation. Genesis claims that God decreed creatures to reproduce “after their kind.¨ It also claims that species were created directly by God in the manner (more or less) that they exist today. So, on a literal reading of Genesis, a theological position, supported by uniform observation, provided grounds to dissent from Darwin about the origin of species. It is true that most theologians were not friendly to Darwin; it is untrue that they had no rational reason for taking the position they did.

There have been noteworthy attacks on evolutionary theory from within the scientific community itself rather than from outside in the theological community. For example, Darwin suggested that the eye may be too complex to arise through natural selection alone. After all, what evolutionary advantage would there be to a half-eye that couldn’t work as an eye? Seizing on Darwin’s idea that it is difficult to give an evolutionary explanation of the eye, because it is apparently irreducibly complex, a small number of scientists, such as the biochemist Michael Behe, are convinced that the world is the product of intelligent design. These complex systems, on Behe’s account, could not have arisen through slight, successive modifications, because they completely cease to function if any of their parts is removed. In response, evolutionists point out the discovery of an intermediate species with a half-eye that could be used for some purpose other than seeing, and success at doing this would help to make the species better fit for survival.

Since the original furor over Darwinism, many religious thinkers have re-examined their theological commitments and scriptural hermeneutical frameworks. The result has been that they have found a way to affirm the importance and accuracy of the historical narratives, while situating them in an evolutionary framework. Similarly, many biologists have happily carried on their work while, at the same time, assenting to the authority of sacred texts. To many Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, Darwin’s biology is unacceptable, and the plain teaching of Genesis is that the world was created directly by God in a six-day period a few thousand years ago, a view known as “young earth creationism.¨ But not all Christians agree that Genesis is to be understood that way. Seeking harmony, these Christians have understood Genesis as being a polemic primarily against the Sumerian creation myth known as the Enuma Elish; and they have concluded that Genesis is not arguing for young earth creationism, or any specific timeline of creation: instead, it may have a completely different pedagogical agenda altogether, the agenda of asserting simply that God alone is the creator; or that creation is intentional and not accidental; or that there is nothing in existence that God did not create.

Not everyone has been pleased by these new harmonizations. Court records across the country reflect the tension that still infuses the debate: state and federal courts have been involved in multiple states where advocates of divine creationism have tried to have their position represented in official public school textbooks and curricula. Religious leaders are often at the forefront of these contests, arguing that evolutionary naturalism is bad science if it is science at all and that the activity of an intelligent designer is evident in nature, and ought to be discussed when origin theories are presented. Their proposals are met with stiff resistance from many civil rights organizations, as well as a preponderance of the scientific establishment. Activists from those camps allege that creationism (or creation science, or intelligent design) can be discussed at home or Sunday school, but it is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at establishing a theocratic educational system formulated by Christian fundamentalists. It is not, they say, a scientific theory.
 
Mod Hat - Inquiry

Mod Hat — Inquiry

Keith1 said:

An admirable suggestion. I'm having a hard time figuring if this thread is going anywhere. So far, it seems to be a battle between unyielding supestition and imperfect, incomplete science.

As the science itself is incomplete and at least slightly imperfect, and the superstition a fairly comfortable position from which one need not put forth any genuine effort, but, rather, simply grasp after whatever random suggestions happen to drift by, the discussion seems more an exercise in the futility of personal satisfaction.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thus, a general question: Is this thread actually going anywhere?

Thank ye.
 
What you have is what I call ignorance. You are ignorant to the facts.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Lock it. Its annoying. I hate creationism.
 
What you have is what I call ignorance. You are ignorant to the facts.

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Lock it. Its annoying. I hate creationism.

Do you hate a car which has a car maker too? I hate cars which have popped out of magic, myself. :D
 
Mod Hat — Inquiry



An admirable suggestion. I'm having a hard time figuring if this thread is going anywhere. So far, it seems to be a battle between unyielding supestition and imperfect, incomplete science.

As the science itself is incomplete and at least slightly imperfect, and the superstition a fairly comfortable position from which one need not put forth any genuine effort, but, rather, simply grasp after whatever random suggestions happen to drift by, the discussion seems more an exercise in the futility of personal satisfaction.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Thus, a general question: Is this thread actually going anywhere?

Thank ye.

Its going nowhere. Because those who cannot prove how a finite universe just popped up - are upset at those who don't accept that a finite universe can just pop up. Subsequently, those who cannot prove how a finite universe can just pop up - are upset at those who cannot prove how a finite universe cannot just pop up.

I say, science does not apply here - becase from a scientific POV a finite realm cannot be based on any scientific principles. In this case, where none can prove either of their cases - the sound premise must apply:

Until you can prove how a finite realm can just pop up, the CAUSE & EFFECT factor of creationism wins. Call it a surprise, unpopular win if you like. :D
 
Its going nowhere. Because those who cannot prove how a finite universe just popped up - are upset at those who don't accept that a finite universe can just pop up. Subsequently, those who cannot prove how a finite universe can just pop up - are upset at those who cannot prove how a finite universe cannot just pop up.

I say, science does not apply here - becase from a scientific POV a finite realm cannot be based on any scientific principles. In this case, where none can prove either of their cases - the sound premise must apply:

Until you can prove how a finite realm can just pop up, the CAUSE & EFFECT factor of creationism wins. Call it a surprise, unpopular win if you like.


Pure drivel. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Until you can prove how a finite realm can just pop up, the CAUSE & EFFECT factor of creationism wins.

This is a logical fallacy.

See [enc]false dichotomy[/enc].

Obviously, there are other alternatives to 1. The universe "just popped up" and 2. "There's a supernatural, all-powerful God who created the universe".
 
This is a logical fallacy.

See [enc]false dichotomy[/enc].

Obviously, there are other alternatives to 1. The universe "just popped up" and 2. "There's a supernatural, all-powerful God who created the universe".

Willing and able to recieve thy enlightenment. Spit it out!
 
Its going nowhere. Because those who cannot prove how a finite universe just popped up - are upset at those who don't accept that a finite universe can just pop up. Subsequently, those who cannot prove how a finite universe can just pop up - are upset at those who cannot prove how a finite universe cannot just pop up.

I say, science does not apply here - becase from a scientific POV a finite realm cannot be based on any scientific principles. In this case, where none can prove either of their cases - the sound premise must apply:

Until you can prove how a finite realm can just pop up, the CAUSE & EFFECT factor of creationism wins. Call it a surprise, unpopular win if you like. :D

There is no evidence that the universe is finite.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top