“The Scopes Trial Revisited” - An invitation to examine both sides of the origins debate

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
One of the worst serial killers in US History, Jeffrey Dahmer, says that his atheistic belief in evolution was a driving force behind his killing and lack of respect for human life. While in prison, he was given materials about Creation produced by Kent Hovind and he accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. He was eventually murdered in prison but this is a prime example of why the religion off Humanism/Athiesm/Darwinism is so dangerous.

 






Tidal

Star
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
2,690
I think most modern christians accept evolution because we only have to look around to see evolution happening all the time, ('survival of the fittest')
BUT behind it all christians also accept there's a 'guiding hand' behind evolution keeping it on track.
Senator John McCain summed it up pretty good when he said-
"I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also"

Some scientists think so too-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."- Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician),Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed"- Barry Parker (cosmologist),Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
I think most modern christians accept evolution because we only have to look around to see evolution happening all the time, ('survival of the fittest')
BUT behind it all christians also accept there's a 'guiding hand' behind evolution keeping it on track.
Senator John McCain summed it up pretty good when he said-
"I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also"

Some scientists think so too-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."- Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician),Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed"- Barry Parker (cosmologist),Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
I read a very good book recently by Anthony Flew (famous ex-atheist) who came to a very similar position. Without questioning the Big Bang or evolution, he came to the view through philosophy and science that there must be a God, and flowing dialogue with NT Wright (of BioLogos popularity) believes that the Christian perspective on who God is represents the most likely perspective.

On your first point though (and from by own background BSc Biology/Biochem) the point you make about speciation interests me. You may have come across the “Tree of Life of Evolution” and the “Orchard of Creation”. Both models allow for the observed variation, selection and speciation that we observe. The former postulates great leaps and jumps between species (e.g. macro level changes which must cope with the challenge of irreducible complexity) while the latter accepts divergence which may be substantial, but more limited than suggested by evolutionary theorists.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
DEB19ACD-B5E5-489B-86FA-ED9A5F45BCC0.jpeg

Darwin may have been able to find such cases, but there are plenty out there. This was the first impossible jump I came across for a gradualistic process to produce:-

 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
During my A’Levels, the “Evolution of the Horse” was held up as an example of progression through ransoms mutation and natural selection. It was a compelling pitch, but sadly lacking in substance as the supposed lineage was shown to be entirely false over half a century ago!!!

 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
EAC0B280-22B8-4801-B503-920130276432.jpeg
Anyone who has studied the complexity of the eye will tell you that it makes a top end smartphone camera seem a simple bit of kit.

#notbychance
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
This is major.

A presentation by Barry Setterfield on recent breakthroughs in plasma physics indicate a far more likely process for the formation of stars than the Nebular Hypothesis. The implications are truly mind-blowing!!!

I have been up half the night and watched this twice, the second time, taking screenshots of the slides!!! I have long rejected biological evolution due to the unscalable cliff of abiogenesis followed by the uncrossable canyons of irreducible complexity (!) but I took the problem of distant starlight on faith and have waited 30 years for an answer that I found truly satisfying...

 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
Major disagreement among top scientists at the Royal Society over re-writing/reframing the theory of evolution in light of advancements in epigenetics


by Alex Major

Abstract:

New research programs in epigenetics have reinforced a body of empirical evidence deemed “irrelevant” to the theory of evolution for 70 years because it does not fit the assertions of the theory. Since the 1940s, there have been gaps between what is observed/practised in research labs, between what is admitted to university undergrad students and what is emphasized in the design and the wording of results of research programs. The gaps widened immensely in the last ten years culminating in a November 2016 conference/debate at the Royal Society of London.

Many scientists are attempting to extend the existing theory of evolution to account for the phenomenon. Some are calling for its full re-write or replacement. A third camp fighting for the status-quo disagree with their interpretation and how to incorporate the findings into the existing canon/assertions. Issues are presented with the use of direct quotes from the conference, mostly.

https://unbiasedscienceandpolitics.blogspot.com/2020/01/major-disagreement-among-top-scientists.html?fbclid=IwAR3RQyKjXRmXiOKXg-000OCFn-MLTJgtf658VdNh9NvvTc-EBM6fcqVnoaQ&m=1
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
The origin of the elements

A new development in astronomy occurred in June of 2018, when a scientific discovery was announced in the Journal Nature. It relates to the origin of the universe and the formation of the various elements in the proposed Big Bang scenario. This development threatens to overturn a scientific approach which has been standard for half a century.

 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
From a Facebook group...

Top Ten List of Evolution’s Most Glaring Contradictions

A list of evolution’s most glaring contradictions.

Every so often, an evolutionist visits this group to ask, out of curiosity or malice, “If you oppose evolution, what are your scientific and logical grounds to do so?” Instead of scoffing at them we should have clear answers to prove that evolution really is a delusion – a contradictory, nihilistic faith, a historical product of human pride and limited knowledge.

1. Denial of life: Evolution both rejects life’s unique nature in the universe and advocates its unique nature.

Rejection: Life is a carbon-based extension of chemistry. It is one of many chemical structures with the capacity to replicate itself.

Advocacy: Though produced by chance, life is an extraordinary and unique process of two chemical systems where the needs of one (a living organism) are met by another (habitat) in a rare match rewarded by survival that spawns a struggle for existence (desire to continue) and an extended development through adaptation.

Contradiction: Is life a material, inanimate, static chemical compound or a dynamic process of dialogue between two chemical systems, rooted in a subjective desire to survive? It cannot be both.

2. Denial of intelligence: Evolution both rejects the existence of a sentient mind participating in the process and advocates its necessity.

Rejection: Living organisms cannot affect evolution by willing to adapt as it only happens due to random mutations. Therefore, our minds can be considered either a delusion, or non-existent aspect of life.

Advocacy: Living organisms transcend their present by working relentlessly to propagate their kinds, struggling to exist and compete in an environment of limited resources through careful sexual selection, parenting, marking off their territory, and storing the resources for future consumption.

Contradiction: If a living organism is an inanimate chemical compound existing in the present, and the mind is just an illusion of identity, how can an illusion of identity act on remembering the past and planning the future? An information system transcending time is necessary for such operations. Even a ‘selfish gene’ implies the existence of a subjective mind with future objectives.

3. Denial of causality: Evolution both rejects causality as an illusion of logical connections and purpose while only random chance is responsible for change, and advocates causality’s necessity.

Rejection: Random mutations produce change in organisms. After many unconnected mutations, one of them produces and illusion of cause-and-effect, and progress.

Advocacy: When lions attack a herd of antelopes, they only kill the slow, sick, or weak. Thus, natural selection (cause) benefits both the lions and the antelopes through survival of the fittest (effect) that keeps both populations healthy and genetically fit.

Contradiction: If the cause-and effect of survival of the fittest is only an illusion of causality, where none exists, then the entire theory is based on an illusion, i.e., it is delusional.

4. Denial of purpose: Evolution claims that while Nature has no overriding purpose, the force that keeps it going is survival, a desire to continue living achieved through struggle for existence, sexual selection, and adaptations, all of these carefully monitored by the overriding mechanism of natural selection.

Rejection: All evolution stems from a mindless chemical process of replication – repeating the same outcome with no final objective, which is not only purposeless, but dangerous because it exhausts the resources of the environment.

Advocacy: Natural selection produces the grandeur and majesty of life by allowing for variety of forms and gradual improvement, as it keeps different species fit and healthy within limited resources through survival of the fittest.

Contradiction: If survival of the fittest and natural selection are only metaphors used by Darwin to explain purposeless evolution for the human mind that seeks purpose, then the entire theory is only a metaphoric illusion – a delusion of purpose.

5. Denial of Design: Evolution rejects the concept of design as a purposeful structure of an organism’s body, and is fundamentally based on the concept as a gradual complementary improvement increasing an organism’s chances of survival.

Rejection: A living organism is a product of chance. No structure is better or worse – it is a delusion to think so. Some structures just continue to exist.

Advocacy: By eliminating poor variations and favouring successful ones, evolution produces improved complexity, a complementary match between an organism and its habitat that produces better chances of survival.

Contradiction: An evolutionary improvement of design either exists or it does not. If improvement is only a delusion of the human mind, then the whole theory is an illusion of the human mind – which had to be proven.

6. Denial of Free Will: Evolution argues that living organisms lack free will as drones of a chemical game of reproduction, and also maintains that life is based on choosing to live as opposed to dying.

Denial: Nature does not really choose to reward one organism with survival over another – this is only a metaphor for living conditions impacting survival with no intentional connection;

Advocacy: The most powerful drive of life is to survive, while death is a possibility; hence, in sexual selection, females choose the best mate for survival and males choose to fight for the best female.

Contradiction: If a theory, in all of its aspects, depends on ‘selection” either by Nature, species, or individual organisms, there must be an element of choice, or the theory is invalid. Evolution does not exist without choices, and if choices are only “metaphorical” then the whole theory is a metaphor, an illusion.

7. Denial of Morality: Evolution rejects morality in Nature as a ruthless war of competition, and evolution accepts Nature’s own morality of favouring the species capable of adaptation, thus selecting the fittest.

Rejection: Evolution is a blind ruthless war were life feeds on life with no regard for another;

Advocacy: Evolution works for the improvement of a species and life overall. By eliminating the sick and the poorly adapted, it produces the most harmonious model of Nature.

Contradiction: Evolution is either beneficial to life, or it does not care. If improvement and survival of the fittest are only illusions, then the whole theory is only an illusion of the human mind.

8. Denial of Beauty: Evolution both denies the existence of beauty in a value-free Nature and depends on it in such concepts as Sexual Selection.

Denial: Evolution claims that nature is in a constant state of war, a ruthless competition between living organisms with no regard for the other – this is called Struggle for Existence, or Survival of the Fittest.

Advocacy: Evolution also claims the need for the other – though based on relative standards of beauty – is the main mechanism of survival through Sexual Selection.

Contradiction: We are either completely selfish or attracted to someone else. Even relative beauty is still beauty, and it persists through Nature, unless we claim that beauty is an illusion of the mind, making evolution a delusion of the mind.

9. Denial of Co-operation: Evolution claims that life is based on fierce competition which becomes most fierce among individuals of the same species, but it also claims that living organisms form communities of the same species, symbiosis exists in nature, and Nature overall works for the benefit of all species through Natural Selection.

Rejection: Because life is a competition for resources, individuals of the same species hate other members of the same kind.

Advocacy: in many insect societies, some members (drones) give up their right to reproduction to advance the good of the community; Herds and packs benefit individuals of the same kind to ward off attackers.

Contradiction: If living organisms hate their own kind, why do they form societies of co-operation? Symbiosis is a common model to be found in nature, even between different species and even in cellular structure.

10. Denial of the Joy of Living: Evolution claims that life is a constant painful struggle, but that all living forms try to survive. Is pain the objective of life?

Rejection: Darwin never fully explains the payoff of struggling to exist and modern evolution sees it as a strange tendency hidden in our genes, with no room to enjoy life – it is a chemical drive of our DNA.

Advocacy: Living organisms are driven by a positive desire to secure all resources for themselves and to enjoy the abundance.

Contradiction: Life does not continue to perpetuate the pain of the struggle; it exists for the positive goal of enjoying the habitat. We cannot confuse the existence of conflict with the desire for peace in all life.

Conclusion: Because the theory of evolution is based on concepts of life’s distinctness, sentience, causality, purpose, design, free will, mutual dependency, selection, fitness and beauty while rejecting each of these concepts as illusory inventions of the human mind not to be found in Nature, the entire theory, by its own admission, is only a delusion of the human mind misrepresenting the true state of Nature.
 






Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
10,690
The 3 rules of protecting evolution from ever being proven wrong.

Rule #1: Of course you can ask questions, just never question evolution.

Rule #2: Of course you are free to investigate things yourself. Here's a list of preapproved sources you must use.

Rule #3: We are not trying to restrict freethinking. We want you to learn everything you can, as long as you also reach "our" preapproved conclusions.

And as long as you follow these rules, regardless of education, you will always be considered smarter than anyone who would dare to disagree with you. You don't even have to have degrees. Besides, only those who believe evolution actually understand evolution.
 






Top