Evolution-ation

Author: Yassine
evolution
pseudoscience
fantasy
myth

Posts

Total: 130
Topic's author
#1
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
You may be wondering why this topic about Evolution is not in the Science Forum, but here in the Religion Forum. Bare with me.

For the longest time, I was apathetic to Evolutionary Theory. It didn't speak to me. I come from a Physics/Mathematics background. So the whole thing didn't look serious to me. From someone who studied things like Quantum Mechanics, Gravitation & Particle Physics, evolutionary ideas looked too mechanical, too naive, too archaic. No maths. The world we commonly encounter in our daily lives is minimally energetic. That's why it looks as if things are mechanical, as if things affect each-other, as if we understand the parts of a problem, then we can understand the problem. In another highly energetic world the things we think of as common sense would become completely uncommon. That is the quantum realm, the femto-world, where things are highly energetic for their sizes, weird shite happens. The world is not a a large reductionist structure, it's a weird mysterious enigma. Evolutionary postulates, however, are reductionist champions. That's why they never made much sense to me. But they always held some romance to them. Maybe I just don't get it yet, maybe I'm not seeing what all these people are seeing. This, until I read Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. This book completely changed my mind about Evolution. I thought I was in for a scientific adventure. What does the icon of Evolution have to say? To my astonishment, this was no book of Science. This was not terrible Science. The few psychiatry papers I read before were terrible. The alien articles I read were terrible. This was simply not Science at all, rather Literature, of the Myth genre. The entire premise of the book is: 'Evolution is true, therefore let's imagine how it happened'. A genesis story of creation with a materialist mythology. Hence the title, Imagination... I mean... Evolutionation.

For a theory which has been systematically & consistently taught for decades across the globe as a core science curriculum, Evolution fails spectacularly in gaining support. Despite all the promotions, the majority of people outside Europe & East Asia do not believe in mainstream Evolution. In the US, only 20% of Americans believe in the mainstream claims of Evolution, whereas 40% deny it, despite the decades long totalitarian tyranny the evolutionary narrative exerts over the country's education & academic arenas. The evolutionationists believe that it's the fault of the Church. In truth, it's the fault of the theory itself. The Church could not thwart antithetical scientific ideas about the cosmos from spreading when it had absolute power over the people. It is of highest absurdity that the Church would be able to thwart sensible scientific ideas when in a time where it is of ultimate powerlessness in state & academic institutions. Very few people insist on denying things they see with their eyes & realize to be true in favor of their dogmas. Certainly, the idea is simply not that compelling. The evolutionary narrative is a failed narrative. It had all the chances in the world & all the powers of the state to gain support, yet it barely managed to. 

For those of you who subscribe to this mythos. Before you get your panties in a wad, this has nothing to do with Creationism. I'm Muslim, the truth of Evolution does not add to or diminishes from my faith. In fact, the earlier theories of evolution emerged from the Muslim world. Ikhwan Safa taught that life progresses from plants to monkeys to humans. Ideas which have been adopted by many among the Mutazilites after them, eventually making it into Europe in early 19th century. Such is an idea which has been circulating in the Muslim world for over a thousand years, yet barely being able garner any serious support. Disgraceful! Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology. But for now, this evolutionary story may very well be all that we can muster. That said, if you're a Christian, why do you believe in this evolutionary story while you have a more compelling life story in the Bible? If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
#2
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,595
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Yassine
 Bare with me.
It's actually bear with me.
So, bear with me or bare with me: which is correct? Well, the long and short of it is that, in its verb form, "bare" means to reveal or uncover. "Reveal with me," doesn't quite have the intended meaning of "hold on a moment." Consequently, "bear with me" is the correct spelling of this common phrase.
Topic's author
#3
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@FLRW
- Yeah, I noticed a couple of typos after I posted the thread, but it didn't let me click the edit button. Thanks though. 

#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Yassine
That said, if you're a Christian, why do you believe in this evolutionary story while you have a more compelling life story in the Bible?
I read the Bible the same way I read Homer's Iliad- I know the stories that form the core of my culture, I admire the poetry, I am chastised by the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount and strive to obey the Golden Rule, I study our history as recorded therein but that book's value to me is in no way dependent on its factualness. I feel no more need to verify that a talking serpent tricked Eve than I do that three goddesses staged a beauty contest for Paris. 

I am perfectly comfortable learning and loving a mysterious, unverified, and unverifiable Bible.

If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
Belief has nothing to do with it.  I trust results that remain consistent upon iteration.  I trust theories that prove out.  The Origin of the Species theorizes that if we look deep underground we will find the remains of creatures transitioning from apes to men, more like apes the deeper we go.  So we dug and we found those bones by the thousands buried in rational geologic progressions.  The Descent of Man theorizes that if we look at living organisms microscopically, we will find the mechanisms of inheritance that explain the replication of biological traits and the mechanisms of mutation that explain adaptation.  So we dug and we found the double-helixed DNA molecule.  I suppose one might call it a reinforcement of belief when molecular biologists send messages to our immune system via an injection of modified nucleic acids, defusing the rapid acceleration of a coronavirus pandemic but its not really about belief.  It's just recognizing what methods work effectively and consistently and relying on that consistency and communicating those theories that prove accurate.

Topic's author
#5
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi

I am perfectly comfortable learning and loving a mysterious, unverified, and unverifiable Bible.
- Do you feel the same about a mysterious, unverified & unverifiable evolutionary story?

Belief has nothing to do with it.  I trust results that remain consistent upon iteration.  I trust theories that prove out.  The Origin of the Species theorizes that if we look deep underground we will find the remains of creatures transitioning from apes to men, more like apes the deeper we go.  So we dug and we found those bones by the thousands buried in rational geologic progressions.
- That's an old lie. There are apes, & there are humans. Nothing in between. Idem for all other creatures. The beauty of this story, however, lies in its imaginative scope. Whichever combination of bones you bring, they'll find just the right tales to tell you. It doesn't matter if you get a thing & its opposite. There is always a story to tell. This is not Science, this is ad hoc presumablism. Politicians do this to avoid responsibility. But I'm willing to believe you. What is, according to you, the best such transitions which have been recorded? I'm all ears.

The Descent of Man theorizes that if we look at living organisms microscopically, we will find the mechanisms of inheritance that explain the replication of biological traits and the mechanisms of mutation that explain adaptation.
- Alright. I'm not sure if you've been lied to, or if you're having a brain fart. What you're saying is as close to the truth as the one edge of the universe is closer to the other.

So we dug and we found the double-helixed DNA molecule.
- Do they teach you these lies or what? I strongly recommend you look into this further. 

I suppose one might call it a reinforcement of belief when molecular biologists send messages to our immune system via an injection of modified nucleic acids, defusing the rapid acceleration of a coronavirus pandemic but its not really about belief. 
- This has zero connection to the evolutionary narrative.

It's just recognizing what methods work effectively and consistently and relying on that consistency and communicating those theories that prove accurate.
- Sure, sure, sure. How do you apply this to the evolutionary story? Be exact. 



#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Yassine
You asked two personal questions which I answered fulsomely.  Just calling my answers false is not a basis for rational argument or even polite.
Topic's author
#7
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@oromagi
You asked two personal questions which I answered fulsomely.  Just calling my answers false is not a basis for rational argument or even polite.
- If you look on the top left corner of your screen, you will notice the word: debateart. We are here to argue & debate. Yours is an emotional response. I was not rude. If anything, it is rude to answer my passionate questions with obvious lies. I made a whole thread expressing my shock over the fantasticalness of the evolutionary story. I believe that if there was a best argument for Evolution, then Dawkins must've brought it in his book, & yet he failed. If you had an actual solid argument for evolution, a single irrefutable evidence for the theory, you would've brought it up first. With so much fanaticism, why has no-one ever brought this ever much needed evidence?


#8
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
We took a wolf and turned it into a chihuahua over the course of 10 thousand years. We bred a bald cat of a naturally occurring mutation by selective breeding. What's so hard to believe in that it goes further in the 3.5 billion years life has existed on this earth? That's 350,000 times our fuckery with dogs. A bear looks like a big dog already. Everything looks all the same already, bone structure similar across a billion animals, stretched out here, compacted there, adapted in yet another place. There's no great stretch of the imagination in it, friend. I bet if I sat you next to a shaved ape people wouldn't tell the difference. 
Topic's author
#9
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
We took a wolf and turned it into a chihuahua over the course of 10 thousand years.
- No. You took a dog & it's still a dog. It's the same species. Wolves, coyotes & dogs are interfertile. They are all the same species in the strictest definition of the word.

We bred a bald cat of a naturally occurring mutation by selective breeding.
- Still a cat. 

What's so hard to believe in that it goes further in the 3.5 billion years life has existed on this earth?
- You'd think. The same species which lived then (such as cyanobacteria) still the same species today. Yeah, indeed hard to believe.

That's 350,000 times our fuckery with dogs.
- You'll still end up with a dog. Those poor cyanobacterias go 4 generations a day, so that's 5,110,000,000 times our f*ckery with dogs, yet the bastards are still cyanobacterias.

A bear looks like a big dog already.
- Two types of dogs can look more different than a bear looks different from an elephant. Still dogs. Like butterflies, all 17k species of them, they call all biologically intermate. They look so different, yet they are all still butterflies.

Everything looks all the same already, bone structure similar across a billion animals, stretched out here, compacted there, adapted in yet another place.
- So when you look at any similarity in the world your head jumps to "they must've evolved from each-other"?

There's no great stretch of the imagination in it, friend.
- Of course not, you been indoctrinated in this. The credit of creative imagination goes to those who came up with these fantasies. 

I bet if I sat you next to a shaved ape people wouldn't tell the difference. 
- People like you I'm sure. When I see an ape, it's an ape, always been an ape, since millions of years. So is the jellyfish, still the same goddamn jellyfish for 700 million years. What do you know!

- Lemme ask you, suppose the most skeptical person you can imagine & you want to convince him that the theory of evolution is fact, with the most obvious proof. What would it be?


#10
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Lemme ask you, suppose the most skeptical person you can imagine & you want to convince him that the theory of evolution is fact, with the most obvious proof. What would it be?
I'd offer no singular proof. I'd point out to him what I have to you here. I could reference a fossil record if I was bothered. I'd point him to Darwin. I'd point him to a wiki page on experimental evolution. I might point out, like Dawkins, that the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe is suggestive of a neck grown after the fact, with no care for already existing internal arrangement. It was something else before, now gone. But I suppose just another sort of giraffe, eh? I'd point him to a cranky Arab with an inferiority complex and a thousand year old book full of gay bashing by a supposed prophet who liked little girls. I'd ask him what he thought of that.

So when you look at any similarity in the world your head jumps to "they must've evolved from each-other"?
Do you look like your father? He's apish too I bet. What of your ape kids, can you see yourself in them?
Too far maybe, lol. 

#11
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I like a drink on a Friday. 
#12
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Topic's author
#13
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
I'd offer no singular proof. I'd point out to him what I have to you here. I could reference a fossil record if I was bothered. I'd point him to Darwin. I'd point him to a wiki page on experimental evolution. I might point out, like Dawkins, that the laryngeal nerve of a giraffe is suggestive of a neck grown after the fact, with no care for already existing internal arrangement. It was something else before, now gone. But I suppose just another sort of giraffe, eh?
- Yeah, you got nothing. You can only point to your high priests.

I'd point him to a cranky Arab with an inferiority complex and a thousand year old book full of gay bashing by a supposed prophet who liked little girls. I'd ask him what he thought of that.
- Insults are the arguments of losers. Pathetic.

Do you look like your father? He's apish too I bet. What of your ape kids, can you see yourself in them? Too far maybe, lol. 
- You shouldn't talk to your kids like that.

#14
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Yeah, you got nothing. You can only point to your high priests.
They're not high priests. They're just a lot more impressive than you. 

Insults are the arguments of losers. Pathetic.
I just don't like you. 
Topic's author
#15
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger


Quick Youtube search, what's up with all these American fathers raping their little girls. Most disgusting country on Earth.


#16
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
I'm an Irishman. 
Topic's author
#17
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
They're not high priests. They're just a lot more impressive than you. 
- You're not very convincing.

I just don't like you. 
- What's bred in the bone will come out in the flesh. 
Topic's author
#18
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
I'm an Irishman. 
- You giving a terrible name to your people. My experience with Irish people has been top notch, number one European people. 
#19
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@Yassine
Topic's author
#20
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@badger
- I stopped for the sake of your Irish people, which you do not represent. But you keep sending me links. Why so many children decapitated & dismembered, this is revolting:

#21
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Great question and good points. 

Interesting how the immediate concessions came. No proof just encourage people consider. 

As a Christian I do believe the biblical story.  

Topic's author
#22
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Great question and good points. 

Interesting how the immediate concessions came. No proof just encourage people consider. 

As a Christian I do believe the biblical story.  
- Why do you not adhere to the evolutionary narrative?

#23
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Yassine
My take on this who matter is that:
The Earth, plus Adam & Eve, are much, much older than 6,000 years. Why that idea took hold is an apparent mystery, but it appears the facts are that it is really a very recent notion; even in just the 20th century, popularized [it has some roots to 19th century, but, still, rather recent] by an amateur geologist, George Price.  https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm. The Creationist crowd started as a religious effort only after Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is curious because Darwin's first edition of that book acknowledged in it last chapter, last paragraph, indeed, last sentence that, 

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm [bold italic for emphasis]
That the second through six editions removed the italic bolded text is evidence of Darwin's gradual loss of faith, mostly due to the early loss of a daughter.

My personal belief is that while various species ["a few forms," and actually, quite a few] were created outright, evolution was an intentional consequence of life that continues today, but that the creation of man, was a distinctly different creation than the apes. I believe creation to have been a science, and evolution to be an extension of that science. Therefore, they are not only on the same coin, but not even just on one side or the other, but on both sides of one coin; coincident activities that have gone on for millions and billions of years.In other words, God did not retire after seven days, or even six, [and in any case, I do not perceive those periods as being merely 24 hours in length] but continues to be at work in his profession.
#24
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?
The “story” starts with Charles Darwin (pbuh). He was always fascinated with the natural world…

Long story short, great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.


Topic's author
#25
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@fauxlaw
My take on this who matter is that:
The Earth, plus Adam & Eve, are much, much older than 6,000 years. Why that idea took hold is an apparent mystery, but it appears the facts are that it is really a very recent notion; even in just the 20th century, popularized [it has some roots to 19th century, but, still, rather recent] by an amateur geologist, George Price.  https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/11/article/i1052-5173-22-11-4.htm. The Creationist crowd started as a religious effort only after Darwin's Origin of the Species, which is curious because Darwin's first edition of that book acknowledged in it last chapter, last paragraph, indeed, last sentence that, 

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm [bold italic for emphasis]
That the second through six editions removed the italic bolded text is evidence of Darwin's gradual loss of faith, mostly due to the early loss of a daughter.
- I know in several places in his the book, such suggestive texts were progressively replaced by more atheistic statements.

My personal belief is that while various species ["a few forms," and actually, quite a few] were created outright, evolution was an intentional consequence of life that continues today, but that the creation of man, was a distinctly different creation than the apes. I believe creation to have been a science, and evolution to be an extension of that science. Therefore, they are not only on the same coin, but not even just on one side or the other, but on both sides of one coin; coincident activities that have gone on for millions and billions of years.In other words, God did not retire after seven days, or even six, [and in any case, I do not perceive those periods as being merely 24 hours in length] but continues to be at work in his profession.
- What makes you believe in the truth of the evolutionary narrative?

Topic's author
#26
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
The “story” starts with Charles Darwin (pbuh). He was always fascinated with the natural world…
- Couldn't agree more, Darwin is the prophet of the religion that is Darwinism. Too bad he was found to be a false prophet, & his religion superseded by Neo-Darwinism.

Long story short, great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
- Explains why you skipped the ideas & went right to the people... Charles... 


#27
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Yassine
- Couldn't agree more, Darwin is the prophet of the religion that is Darwinism. Too bad he was found to be a false prophet, & his religion superseded by Neo-Darwinism.
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself. Is this what you’re calling neo? Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards. You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”

- Explains why you skipped the ideas & went right to the people... Charles... 
“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 

That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 


#28
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Because it is not just impossible. It is implausible and improbable. Apart from that it is unprovable. And the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence. 
Topic's author
#29
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Reece101
Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself. Is this what you’re calling neo?
- Autocorrecting implies incorrectness. You've lost the argument before you even started. Neo-Darwinism is the last synthesis of Darwinian evolution. They scrap the previous syntheses & invent new stories, because they realize it was all fantasy exposed with new discoveries. They are at their 5th synthesis now, because of the Genome Project; comparative genealogy do not support the traditional tree of life they concocted. So, don't worry, Neo-Darwinism will be out of the door soon. Maybe we'll get Neo-Neo-Darwinism. We'll see what these evolutionationist will come up with. I'm sure they will deliver the best stories. So far they are still arguing about what this extended synthesis is, because they are not sure what stories to tell before they know the facts. Like politicians.

Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards.
- I blame the education system for this. Instead of teaching you how to write an essay, they tell you to write one. Instead of teaching you what Science is, they tell you these catchphrases that mean nothing. Science does not relate to truth in the slightest, it relates to accuracy & likelihood. No scientific theory can ever be true, by design. Science practices an inductive reasoning, where one seeks a universal explanation (an abstract hypothesis) to a particular event (a concrete observable fact), by computation of frequency. In short: observations, then hypothesis explaining observations, then statistical comparison of results of hypothesis against new observations, then rinse & repeat. A good such hypothesis is a possible, plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate explanation:
Plausible: intuitive & in harmony with the general scientific narrative.
Simple: as opposed to complex, more complexions mean more assumptions.
Verifiable: fits observable facts.
Falsifiable: predicts new observable facts
Accurate: quantitative postulate with minimal statistical margin of error.

You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”
- You have it backwards. You have yet to produce any proof or evidence for the mythos that is the evolutionary narrative you subscribe to. Don't take my word for it, check the theory of evolution against the conditions required by the scientific method. Is the theory of evolution plausible? No, it isn't. It's a dumb reductionist theory in a quantum world. Simple? Absolutely not. It's the most convoluted expansive tale ever produced by Mankind. Verifiable? That's a joke. Falsifiable? Haha. It's the only known so-called theory that predicts Jack Schitt. Accurate? It doesn't predict anything or give us any measure of anything to even have the chance to be inaccurate, let alone accurate.

- I'm ready to provide proof for the Islamic narrative that I'm willing to debate it on this forum. Are you ready to provide evidence for your narrative?


“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 
That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 
- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory. Life is a profoundly quantum mystery. When you move the tip of your finger, it's not a crankshaft mechanism, instead countless quantum chemical reactions are in play, from the muscle tissue down to the cell & down to the molecules & down to the smallest particles involved. It's impossible to explain biodiversity with imbecilic vacuous tales about similarity in bone structure & common ancestor. We must achieve a bottom-up understanding of biology, by expanding our understanding in physics, maybe even beyond quantum theory, then building up from elementary particles interactions up to the organic compounds (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins & carbohydrates), up to cell structure & so on. Hence, a quantum theory of biology, with actual equations & predictions.




#30
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
And the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence. 
More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were.  The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.

And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. 

Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone"  Mark 16:3  when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26. 

 Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?

 The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.