Blowing Up Darwin

[abu afak]

..Belief in Darwin is no different than belief in any other religion.
All are based on faith.

Go forth and sin no more.

Lying/sinning Bimb0!
Evolution belief is based on 160 years of ever-growing and overwhelming EVIDENCE.
God/S have none. Just faith/belief without evidence.
`

​

 

[Robert W]

And this discussion is about, Life being designed by God (which it isn't) or due to natural/coincidental occurrences on earth and the universe. - aka evolutionary processes on earth.

Again you prove you don't understand the discussion at all. We can skip god for the moment. Can you survive eating only plants? A post or two above this is my discussion about this. You want to disprove GOD. You admit it above. And yet you have no clue why life began. Evolution you speak of. But evolution only means change. When parents have children, unless born as twins, it is pretty easy to say that the children prove evolution. Each child is different. So evolution is not a problem for me. In fact I am a firm believer in evolution as I define it. I am the father of two daughters. From two wives. The girls are not alike in looks. So even with the same father, the daughters are not twins or remotely the same looks. Both are attractive since I was fortunate to marry two attractive women.

Next issue. What was the first life? I believe this is proven. It is Cyanobacteria. What is the origin? Australia and not Africa as some claim humans originated. Do you believe in the theory that humans were first in Africa? Can bacteria evolve into humans or elephants or dinosaurs?

According to current scientific understanding, the first evidence of life on Earth is found in fossilized structures called stromatolites, which are believed to be the preserved remains of microbial mats, discovered in 3.48 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia's Pilbara region; essentially, the earliest known life forms on Earth were microscopic organisms that left traces in these ancient rocks.
According to current scientific understanding, cyanobacteria are considered to be one of the earliest life forms on Earth, with fossil evidence suggesting they existed around 3.5 billion years ago, making them among the first organisms capable of oxygenic photosynthesis, significantly impacting the Earth's atmosphere by releasing oxygen as a byproduct.

Key points about cyanobacteria and their role as early life on Earth:

• Photosynthetic ability:

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Hebrew BIBLE does not state that the earth is the center of the Universe - start reading the OT.

The Roman Church adopted the Ptolemaic, or Geocentric Model of the Universe, which stated that the Earth was the center of all creation, and thus the Roman Church embedded this scientific assumption into their NT.

I said precisely that, that the Bible does not promote geocentrism but the Church did (they interpreted it that way) and Galileo disagreed with their interpretation.

To STATE (not interpret) that Adam&Eve were the first Humans designed by God to Gods liking - and stating (not interpreting) that the genealogical countdown therefore places A&E at around 6300 B.C. already is proven to be wrong/FALSE - same goes for the STATEMENTS regarding the Flood. (and not some interpretation). Neither is the issue of there only being Adam,Eve and Kain to "generate" future siblings an interpretation - but a STATEMENT in the Bible.

I have no idea whether Genesis is metaphorical or not, recall that Jesus spoke in parables too, deliberately to mislead those hearing his words so there are many examples of the literal text not having a literal meaning.

Wrong as shown above.

BTW, Discussing with you seems needless - since you simply lack knowledge and twist everything around.

As you wish.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Totally meaningless - since both agree onto a higher being - and scientific research based onto 1940'ies, is in no way comparable with today's scientific knowledge.

Where in the timeline did Russell say he believes in the existence of a "higher being"? I must have missed that part. He stated clearly at the beginning that he is an agnostic - listen, I've just it positioned at that point:

Total waste of time - my time

Not if you learned something it isn't and you've just learned that Russell was an agnostic.

 

[Robert W]

Totally meaningless - since both agree onto a higher being - and scientific research based onto 1940'ies, is in noway comparable with today's scientific knowledge.
Total waste of time - my time

If your goal is to not waste your time, you will avoid those who do not believe in GOD. When I read books, parts of the books waste my time. But to get to the good stuff, I accept this wastes my time.
I recommend this book to all posters.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If your goal is to not waste your time, you will avoid those who do not believe in GOD. When I read books, parts of the books waste my time. But to get to the good stuff, I accept this wastes my time.
I recommend this book to all posters.

I've not seen this particular book before so thanks and it looks very interesting. I have read this one however:

The comments from experts to is quite revealing:

Blurbs | Darwin's Doubt

darwinsdoubt.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Have you read it?

Yes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I will be certain to bring up GOD if you should stop bringing up gods.

And we will continue to remind you that your fetish god character is but one of thousands that men have invented.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The belief that the universe was designed i.e. ID was the norm for scientists until quite recently.

Yes, that's called progress.

 

[Kruska]

Where in the timeline did Russell say he believes in the existence of a "higher being"? I must have missed that part. He stated clearly at the beginning that he is an agnostic - listen, I've just it positioned at that point:




Not if you learned something it isn't and you've just learned that Russell was an agnostic.

You don't even know what an agnostic is

Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe it's possible to know for sure that a god exists.

As such an agnostic is not able to generally refute the concept of God or a higher being - whilst an atheist like myself, very well is capable to refute a God or a higher being - over and out.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I said precisely that, that the Bible does not promote geocentrism but the Church did (they interpreted it that way) and Galileo disagreed with their interpretation.

The Bible definitely implies geocentrism, more than once. Because, of course it does. It was made up by iron and bronze age people who didn't know any better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point being made is that holding a belief in God was not a hindrance to doing science, there's no conflict.

Yep.

It's the associated dogma that causes problems. Not simple theism.

Which is why this thread exists.

 

[Robert W]

And we will continue to remind you that your fetish god character is but one of thousands that men have invented.

Where did the first life form come from?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You don't even know what an agnostic is

Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe it's possible to know for sure that a god exists.

As such an agnostic is not able to generally refute the concept of God or a higher being - whilst an atheist like myself, very well is capable to refute a God or a higher being - over and out.

So where did Russell say he believes in a higher being? and where did I say what an agnostic was? I just said Russell was an agnostic.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did the first life form come from?

Earth, unless life formed earlier than that on another planetary body somewhere. Which I find likely.

Hard to say.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The Bible definitely implies geocentrism, more than once. Because, of course it does. It was made up by iron and bronze age people who didn't know any better.

Where does it imply that?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Maybe Earth. Unless life formed earlier than that on another planetary body somewhere. Which I find likely.

Hard to say.

How likely? did you calculate a probability? may I see the calculation? I see you use the trusty "maybe" life jacket when asked a direct question.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yes.

So, you must have noticed that what is nearly universally believed about the event doesn't comport with the actual story.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Now listen to the first two minutes of this



There's absolutely nothing wrong about describing the sky as the "sun goes around the earth" that is an accurate observational description, we see it every day, here in Arizona it comes up over the superstition mountains, move across the sky and sets in the west, every day.

All motion is relative.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where does it imply that?

In verses that say the sun and moon were "stopped" in the sky.