ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

A Darwinian theory "proved"

What was actually proved here is that evolutionary biologists a) don't understand scientody and b) are extraordinarily stupid:
Scientists from Cambridge University, in the U.K., analyzed the relationships between the two, calculating how the number of species per genus and the number of subspecies per species for a number of different animal groups.

Laura van Holstein and Robert Foley used information collected by naturalists to determine the “age” of different species and subspecies to see how they closely they were connected.

They noted a correlation between species variation and subspecies variation. Genera with a higher number of species tended to have species with a higher number of subspecies. This relationship was particularly strong among flying mammals like bats. In comparison, land-based animals showed a positive correlation between species richness and subspecies richness—but this correlation was weaker.
It is often observed, correctly, that correlation is not causation. It is remarkable that Cambridge University scientists don't understand that correlation is also not conclusive proof. If you've paid any attention to the non-science of Neo-Darwinian evolution over the years, you will have noticed that every observation that correlates with the revised theory is a proof of it, while every observation that falsifies it is merely an indication that the revised theory requires further revision.

And while one can't blame the scientists for the way the media portrays their work, the headline is even more embarrassing.

Scientists 'prove Darwin's survival of the fittest theory'

Labels: ,

61 Comments:

Blogger Yossarian March 18, 2020 1:08 PM  

"A subspecies, on the other hand, describe populations within a particular species that may look slightly different and have their own separate breeding ground.

The number of subspecies per species varies considerably. There are 45 known subspecies of red fox but no subspecies of human."

Here we go again...

Blogger Mocheirge March 18, 2020 1:08 PM  

Married couples with more kids are on average older than couples with fewer or no kids. Ergo, kids make parents age. I can science, too.

"A subspecies, on the other hand, describe populations within a particular species that may look slightly different and have their own separate breeding ground.

"There are 45 known subspecies of red fox but no subspecies of human."

Either they can't even maintain their definition of subspecies for a single sentence, or all study of human demographics is invalid.

Blogger Mocheirge March 18, 2020 1:11 PM  

Upon reflection, I see my error. It is true that there are no human subspecies because all humans return to the same breeding ground: Europe and North America. Access to white people is a human right.

Blogger Dire Badger March 18, 2020 1:17 PM  

Pretty strong evidence of intelligent design.

Blogger Trid March 18, 2020 1:18 PM  

Maybe I'm off base here, but aren't terms like "Genus" and "Subspecies" largely man-made and arbitrarily assigned?

I always thought that these social constructs are less based in reality and more of a crib sheet to assist humans in interacting with their environment.

The whole study smacks of navel gazing and ego fluffery

Blogger Out of Nod March 18, 2020 1:25 PM  

It's as if failing to give the creator His due leads one further down the path of folly...I think a wise man once spoke about that.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei March 18, 2020 1:28 PM  

the number of species per genus and the number of subspecies per species

That's cute, basing their "proof" on terms that they can't even adequately or conclusively define: "The number and types of species concepts which exist are constantly changing, but there are at least 26 recognized species concepts."

This is SCIENCE! at its finest, overlaying faulty human perception and unstable human definitions over nature and then claiming it's objective and incontrovertible "fact".

Blogger Doktor Jeep March 18, 2020 1:39 PM  

Some science creature is saying that Corona was not created, but evolved. Then I remembered the case against evolution.

Blogger David The Good March 18, 2020 1:41 PM  

It still weirds me out that Moringa oleifera is supposedly related to Brassica oleracea. The huge pods do look like freakishly large mustard seed pods, but still.

Blogger Nikolai Collushnikov March 18, 2020 1:49 PM  

"... you will have noticed that every observation that correlates with the revised theory is a proof of it, while every observation that falsifies it is merely an indication that the revised theory requires further revision."

Essentially, Darwinian Evolution is, in practice, not falsifiable. So it can't be considered a scientific theory. Now try to explain this to your friendly neighborhood Atheist.

Blogger Dan in Georgia March 18, 2020 1:53 PM  

Evolution is a human construct.

Blogger Matt Robison March 18, 2020 1:58 PM  

As Taleb is fond of saying, correlation is not even correlation.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 18, 2020 1:58 PM  

Might as replace those clowns in that article with the sages from the Owen Stanley mountains, penis gourds and all.

Blogger Roy Stalin March 18, 2020 2:19 PM  

I'm not sure I'm following her logic. Shouldn't highly mobile animals with fewer geographic obstacles show fewer subspecies? While they may be able to spread out farther and form different subpopulations, their mobility should offset the geographic separation and allow interbreeding and therefore prevent speciation. Am I missing something or is this where we start handwaving things away?

Blogger Yukichi Sensei March 18, 2020 2:21 PM  

Evolution is more painful the more you look into it.

It does not work in history.
It does not work in social interaction.
It does not work in any field.

But it is the foundation of so many secularist's beliefs.

Evolutionary Christians hurt me the most. You need to pick one, folks.

Blogger michimartini March 18, 2020 2:42 PM  

Exactly. The bible uses the term "kind" (hebrew:baramin), which is less arbitrary as it generally groups everything together that can breed with each other. Can a tabby mate with a lion? If yes, they are of the same kind (cat). The science of determining these kinds is called baraminology.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 18, 2020 2:47 PM  

Trid wrote:The whole study smacks of navel gazing and ego fluffery
That's SCIENCE, baby!

Blogger The World War II Fanatic March 18, 2020 3:04 PM  

10:37 am

Germany suspends refugee resettlement program

It's borders are officially closed to the third world (finally)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/03/18/coronavirus-latest-news/

Blogger OK March 18, 2020 3:13 PM  

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer.

Blogger Jehu March 18, 2020 3:16 PM  

Species and subspecies are currently really lame descriptors. When I was growing up, species actually meant something---the set of all creatures that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. By that definition, a tremendous number of current species completely disappear (wolves and dogs for instance, same species, an awful lot of snakes and birds currently defined as separate species, etc).

Blogger brbrophy March 18, 2020 3:26 PM  

Any research involved in studying subspecies is by definition not about evolution. It's about adaptation. Subspecies is a synonym for breed. Evolutionary Theory is the claim that natural selection creates new species. The study did nothing to discover how new species come into being. When studying species and subspecies, the proper thing to do is to do what Vox did. They should have looked at the rate of change of fixed mutations.

Blogger Lyon March 18, 2020 3:33 PM  

For a good read have a look at two books by David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin and other Essays" and "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and It's Scientific Pretensions" ... mathematically, evolution doesn't make a lick of sense.

Blogger The World War II Fanatic March 18, 2020 3:46 PM  

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-stops-accepting-refugees-over-coronavirus/a-52826716


merkel resign when?

Blogger Oswald March 18, 2020 3:54 PM  

The death rate in Italy appears to be 8 percent. Is that correct? And that includes all age levels. That would mean old people and people with underlying conditions would be even higher in death rates. Correct?

Blogger SciVo March 18, 2020 4:39 PM  

My hands are not large enough for the level of facepalm in that article. It is a fundamental aspect of categorizing that we will tend to break up larger categories into more subcategories, in order to make them conceptually easier to handle. It is even to some extent necessitated by the fact that smaller sets do not have as many members available to be grouped!

I'm going to have to get a really big novelty hand for this one, and maybe even a mask of Jeffrey Epstein (who did not kill himself) for a large-enough face.

Blogger God Emperor Memes March 18, 2020 5:04 PM  

"There are 45 known subspecies of red fox but no subspecies of human."

Obviously never met any Somalis.

Blogger The Cooler March 18, 2020 5:04 PM  

Logically and scientifically, Darwinian Theory does prove one thing conclusively: That self-consistent models are self-consistent.

Blogger camcleat March 18, 2020 5:11 PM  

Speaking of evolution and the concept of subspecies, I'm still chuckling over Laura's last name being "von Holstein."

Pure poetry.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 18, 2020 5:37 PM  

Oswald wrote:The death rate in Italy appears to be 8 percent. Is that correct? And that includes all age levels. That would mean old people and people with underlying conditions would be even higher in death rates. Correct?
Are there enough young patients to skew the numbers down? Or is it only the old and infirm who are getting sick enough to be counted?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 18, 2020 6:09 PM  

"A species is defined as a set of animals or plants with similar characteristics and that can breed with one another."

Not strictly true.

"A subspecies, on the other hand, describe populations within a particular species that may look slightly different and have their own separate breeding ground.

The number of subspecies per species varies considerably. There are 45 known subspecies of red fox but no subspecies of human."


Must... Follow... Globohomo... Agenda! Nations and peoples don't exist!

"calculating how the number of species per genus and the number of subspecies per species for a number of different animal groups."

"There weren't any taxonomists in the house to point out that we decided what constituted each of those arbitrarily in the first place."

"Laura van Holstein and Robert Foley used information collected by naturalists to determine the “age” of different species and subspecies to see how they closely they were connected."

"And then we probably applied circular reasoning."

"This relationship was particularly strong among flying mammals like bats. In comparison, land-based animals showed a positive correlation between species richness and subspecies richness—but this correlation was weaker."

"Even though the correlation we prestidigitated wasn't homogeneous, we're going to pretend it was."

“My research investigating the relationship between species and the variety of subspecies proves that sub-species play a critical role in long-term evolutionary dynamics and in future evolution of species. And they always have, which is what Darwin suspected when he was defining what a species actually was.”

*Repeated headdesking.* Too much nested stupid to unpack.

Blogger ZhukovG March 18, 2020 6:17 PM  

So, no subspecies of humans.

Here's an experiment for ya. Buy a South Korean Army Ranger a few drinks and then tell him he's the same as a Japanese.

As soon as you're 'able' report your findings.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 18, 2020 6:23 PM  

"Essentially, Darwinian Evolution is, in practice, not falsifiable. So it can't be considered a scientific theory. Now try to explain this to your friendly neighborhood Atheist."

Usually results in incoherent screeching even when you're not talking to an atheist.

"Am I missing something or is this where we start handwaving things away?"

You're not missing anything. It's built on at least a few unstated assumptions.

"Evolutionary Christians hurt me the most. You need to pick one, folks."

No, you really don't. Fundamentally, "evolution" just means "change". Of course things change over time, if they didn't, time wouldn't be a thing. The issue, like with "science" is that when most people say "evolution" they mean several different extremely and usually intentionally vague things.

"It is a fundamental aspect of categorizing that we will tend to break up larger categories into more subcategories, in order to make them conceptually easier to handle."

Another good point.

Blogger Duke Norfolk March 18, 2020 6:26 PM  

God Emperor Memes wrote:Obviously never met any Somalis.

Or Abos. Or pygmies. Holy crap. And those are just the most extreme examples. The whole thing is absurd.

Blogger Joe Smith March 18, 2020 6:39 PM  

Evolutionary biology begs the question. That's just the normal state of affairs. Biologists don't even notice anymore, if they ever did.

Blogger Johnny March 18, 2020 6:56 PM  

>If you've paid any attention to the non-science of Neo-Darwinian evolution over the years, you will have noticed that every observation that correlates with the revised theory is a proof of it, while every observation that falsifies it is merely an indication that the revised theory requires further revision.

Isn't that how science works? You revise the current theory according to new evidence.

We're not certain how fast the rate of speciation is and our ideas on how fast it occurs have changed and still vary. But evolution is still the best way to explain fossils. We already know microevolution can change organisms in the short term. If we look at fossils and how they change overtime as well as how species are adapted to their environment then why can't macroevolution exist?

>Evolutionary Christians hurt me the most. You need to pick one, folks.

You don't need to believe The Bible is 100% literal. Certain parts like Jesus dying for our sins are certainly literal, but other parts like whether or not The Prodigal Son are held to be figurative. Why can't some parts of The Bible like the creation story be partially figurative?

Blogger RMH in StL March 18, 2020 6:57 PM  

This was the best laugh I've had in weeks! And waiting to reveal the title till the end was epic.

Blogger Servant March 18, 2020 7:02 PM  

Well they are saying today that o blood people don't get it. So the a/b "mutations" are getting selected out according to them. Can't fight evolution right?

Blogger JD Curtis March 18, 2020 7:03 PM  

Michael Behe on COVID-19 (podcast)
Link

Blogger Jehu March 18, 2020 7:29 PM  

I know that a lot of human ethnicities have fairly low rates of interfertility. If memory serves, fertility is maximized around the 4th cousin level or thereabouts. I wonder if the various flavors of red foxes they preen about have half as much fertility depression when mating with each other as say, Englishmen and Australian Aborigines.

Blogger Johnny March 18, 2020 8:08 PM  

Oswald wrote:The death rate in Italy appears to be 8 percent. Is that correct? And that includes all age levels. That would mean old people and people with underlying conditions would be even higher in death rates. Correct?

Usually recovery takes longer than death, and so the early death rate overstates the death rate. In Italy it is likely to settle down, although it does look bad.

Blogger Unknown March 18, 2020 9:15 PM  

They didn't mention the strength or weakness of the calculated correlations. For anyone interested:

"However, when mammals are separated by environmental substrate, the relationship between generic SR and average SSR in non-terrestrial taxa is stronger than that reported for birds (Kendall's tau = 0.31, p < 0.001). By contrast, the correlation in terrestrial taxa alone weakens compared to that for all mammals (Kendall's tau = 0.11, p < 0.001)."

Blogger Claudio March 18, 2020 10:35 PM  

This may be the existential threat that “The Fourth Turning” describes as being expected sometime in the 2020s.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( The Surprised Pig hadn't had any idea he tasted this good ) March 18, 2020 11:12 PM  

Peter Bright, former Ars Technica writer and part of GamerGate, convicted of attempted pedophilia in retrial:
http://www.innercitypress.com/sdny11peterbrighticp031720.html

Blogger Frank Luke March 18, 2020 11:29 PM  

@16

>The bible uses the term "kind" (hebrew:baramin)

No. The Hebrew for kind (as used in Genesis 1) is "min." "Baramin," formed from smashing together the Hebrew for "created" (bara') and "kind" (min), is a modern construction (first appearing in Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 work FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY) that cannot be found in Biblical Hebrew.

The first time I saw it, I winced. He clearly wants to use the word to mean "the kind which was created" but the transliteration he uses of bara' is the qal perfect 3ms. Instead, he needed to use qal passive participle. Then realize that Hebrew words wouldn't join up like that. It would be a phrase "the kind which was created" and appear as "hamin habaru'". Being used attributively, it must follow the noun and agree in gender, number, and definiteness.

That's the singular. The plural, "the kinds which were created," would be "haminim habaru'im."

Blogger The World War II Fanatic March 18, 2020 11:40 PM  

https://twitter.com/BasedPoland/status/1240024715391045634

Blogger SirHamster March 19, 2020 12:18 AM  

Johnny wrote:Certain parts like Jesus dying for our sins are certainly literal, but other parts like whether or not The Prodigal Son are held to be figurative.
That's because we know about Jesus dying for our sins from the historical account of witnesses.

Those same witnesses recounted Jesus telling the story of the Prodigal Son to the crowds.

Why can't some parts of The Bible like the creation story be partially figurative?
"Why can't ..." is an attempt to make someone else argue against a position you didn't argue for.

That is a very good reason to dismiss it with prejudice. Don't argue from ignorance.

Blogger tublecane March 19, 2020 1:22 AM  

"survival of the fittest theory"

"Survival of the fittest" is a bon mot, not a theory.

It's the "where's the beef?" of the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life through natural selection.

Blogger JamesB.BKK March 19, 2020 1:56 AM  

"while every observation that falsifies it is merely an indication that the revised theory requires further revision."

While hoaxes and later discovered inapposite or distinguishable evidence claims and foundational claims destroyed thereby are ignored.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 19, 2020 4:28 AM  

"Why can't some parts of The Bible like the creation story be partially figurative?"

Of all the things to pick you picked one of the worse ones. The more I learn the more I suspect that even the staunchest literalists probably don't interpret that part nearly literally enough.

Apart from that, no one, not even any insane person so far as I am aware, reads the Bible as entirely literal. There are many obvious metaphors and analogies. So, what are you arguing from, ignorance? Malice? Both?

"Isn't that how science works? You revise the current theory according to new evidence."

No, the point is that it's never even been a theory if it were judged in the same light as anything else is. At best it's been an endless chain of hypotheses. At worst it's constantly called fact and law by pathological liars.

Blogger FrankNorman March 19, 2020 4:34 AM  

Darwinian "Survival of the Fittest" is something that cannot be proven or disproven, because it is a tautology.

What is the definition of "the fittest"? It is those that reproduce and pass on their genes most successfully. If they don't, then they obviously aren't the fittest.

The scam is the notion that this can explain the existence of all life. As if bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics was proof of common ancestry between human beings and apes.

Blogger Oswald March 19, 2020 9:22 AM  

29 said "Are there enough young patients to skew the numbers down? Or is it only the old and infirm who are getting sick enough to be counted?"

That is a perfect example of how they are not telling us the full story. Maybe they don't know. I have never been to Italy; maybe it is filled with old people and the young Vox Day of course.

Blogger Lushtree March 19, 2020 9:47 AM  

As one of those often maligned 'Young Earth Creationists' myself, I am very interested in your statement that "even the staunchest literalists probably don't interpret that part nearly literally enough". Do you mind elaborating or linking me to good information on that topic?

Blogger RobertDWood March 19, 2020 9:53 AM  

Or Samoans.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 19, 2020 12:19 PM  

"Do you mind elaborating or linking me to good information on that topic?"

Still working and feeling it out for myself, so I'm not going to go making any particularly solid claims until I'm extremely confident. As a heads up, I wouldn't venture that "Young Earth" is necessarily accurate. Remember, using "earth" to refer only to the planet is a relatively modern and hyper-specific usage, the word used there likely being more broad, similar to terra and mundus which also refer to dirt and the physical realm.

Blogger Red Pill Angel March 19, 2020 1:47 PM  

#35 Johnny said: Why can't some parts of The Bible like the creation story be partially figurative?

You want to believe that God might have worked through evolution over eons of time, right? Perhaps He did, the timetable could be flexible IMHO, but you can be sure that not one "mutation" was random, and that every species on Earth was personally designed by Him.
Discoveries are being made right now that point to the reality of Noah's flood, 12,85? years ago, give or take a few years. It's all turning out to be pretty literal.

Blogger Lushtree March 19, 2020 3:24 PM  

Makes sense. Thank you fo the reply!

And there was a reason I put 'Young Earth Creationist' in quotes like that. I am not fond of the term. Seems misleading on several fronts. But people at least vaguely understand what is generally implied by it: that God made a completed world in a short time period rather than taking billions of years of unnatural processes to do it.

Blogger Johnny March 19, 2020 8:37 PM  

@46

If you believe the creation story can be partially figurative then do you believe "Evolutionary Christians" can have both a belief in Evolution and Christ without having to "pick one" like the commentor above then I don't know what we're disagreeing about.

@49

>No, the point is that it's never even been a theory if it were judged in the same light as anything else is. At best it's been an endless chain of hypotheses. At worst it's constantly called fact and law by pathological liars.

How so? Our idea of how gravity works has been revised several times, but that doesn't mean it's invalid. If there's a better idea for how speciation occurs that explains things better than natural selection, genetic drift, etc. then the Theory of Evolution should be overturned, but that hasn't happened yet. Natural selection was found not to be the only mechanism by which evolution works (Genetic drift, etc. were added), but there still isn't enough evidence to suggest natural selection is unfounded.

@55

I'd say the mutations are random from our perspective, but perhaps God made them happen for a reason.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 20, 2020 5:38 AM  

"How so? Our idea of how gravity works has been revised several times, but that doesn't mean it's invalid."

Straight lie. It hasn't been revised even once. We don't have the faintest clue why it works and never have, but the basic equations of how it observably does work have been around and accurate for a long time. The only thing that has really changed is the precision and applying relativistic theory to it.

"If there's a better idea for how speciation occurs that explains things better than natural selection, genetic drift, etc."

"etc"? Really? I rest my case. You can't provide a complete and coherent case for the "theory", you just expect that there is one. Bad news, no one can provide a complete and coherent case, because the instant they do it gets shot down, often by a different faction under the same banner.

"then the Theory of Evolution should be overturned, but that hasn't happened yet."

Lie. It's happened over, and over, and over again. What happens is exactly as the OP said, a foundational alteration is made to attempt to fit the evidence while still allowing things to "just happen". Heck, it can't even be done anymore. As only one example among many, look at the difference between saltationists and gradualists, look at why each of their proposed schemas exists, and their arguments against the other. Each is strongly disproven by the proponents of the other and yet the "Theory" you propound could only function by one or the other, not a mix of both, and not by any outside means.

Your "theory" is fundamentally protean, and this is because it not only does not, but also cannot match reality, so it is shifted to route around whatever objection is raised at the moment, even though that route has also been disproven, often repeatedly.

The core of the thing is that people will find rationalizations to believe what they want to believe, and atheistic evolutionary hypotheses are a myriad of interchangeable and intentionally vaguely delineated rationalization to allow people to either:
A: Reject any being and thereby any law superior to man.
B: Or take out their daddy issues on their creator.
C: Or take up a superior intellectual pose to a large number of people who recognize the work of superhuman entities, or gods, or God.

"there still isn't enough evidence to suggest natural selection is unfounded."

Who are you even arguing with? ToE entire isn't NS. No one said it was. No one said there was an issue with NS.

Blogger SirHamster March 20, 2020 1:59 PM  

Johnny wrote:If you believe the creation story can be partially figurative then do you believe "Evolutionary Christians" can have both a belief in Evolution and Christ without having to "pick one" like the commentor above then I don't know what we're disagreeing about.
I was pointing out that you didn't support your position, making the question you asked pointless. You don't say anything about what you think is figurative about the creation account.

If you didn't understand that, you're not tall enough for the ride.

Evolutionary Christians trust in "Science" as an equal or higher authority than the Bible, and that the Bible needs to be interpreted through a Science filter.

This is a serious mistake because Science is full of fraud and driven by anti-Christian materialists. Interpreting the Bible through a Science filter will inevitably introduce errors.

Evolution is complete fraud. Evolutionary theory is ignorant of how information and information theory works.

Mixing evolution and Christianity is mixing lies with the truth.

Blogger Johnny March 23, 2020 8:42 AM  

@58

>Straight lie. It hasn't been revised even once. We don't have the faintest clue why it works and never have, but the basic equations of how it observably does work have been around and accurate for a long time. The only thing that has really changed is the precision and applying relativistic theory to it.

Aspects of it changed without the fundamental theory being invalid. Just like the Theory of Evolution. Microevolution is observable. Macroevolution is observable by looking at the fossil record. The idea of heritable traits being passed down differently over time causing speciation is therefore valid until a better theory comes along.

>"etc"? Really? I rest my case. You can't provide a complete and coherent case for the "theory", you just expect that there is one. Bad news, no one can provide a complete and coherent case, because the instant they do it gets shot down, often by a different faction under the same banner.

You made no case.

>Lie. It's happened over, and over, and over again. What happens is exactly as the OP said, a foundational alteration is made to attempt to fit the evidence while still allowing things to "just happen". Heck, it can't even be done anymore. As only one example among many, look at the difference between saltationists and gradualists, look at why each of their proposed schemas exists, and their arguments against the other. Each is strongly disproven by the proponents of the other and yet the "Theory" you propound could only function by one or the other, not a mix of both, and not by any outside means.

Science is supposed to alter theories based on new evidence.

Saltationism and Gradualism are debates over the rate of speciation over time. Neither change the fact that microevolution and macroevolution are observable and explain speciation the best out of any theory we have.

>Your "theory" is fundamentally protean, and this is because it not only does not, but also cannot match reality, so it is shifted to route around whatever objection is raised at the moment, even though that route has also been disproven, often repeatedly.

Speciation via evolution hasn't been disproven. Only the rate at which speciation occurs.

Natural selection hasn't been disproven. They only added other mechanisms for evolution like genetic drift in addition to natural selection.

>The core of the thing is that people will find rationalizations to believe what they want to believe, and atheistic evolutionary hypotheses are a myriad of interchangeable and intentionally vaguely delineated rationalization to allow people to either:

Some might use evolution for secularist purposes. But evolution itself doesn't disprove God nor the fundamental truths of The Bible.

>Who are you even arguing with? ToE entire isn't NS. No one said it was. No one said there was an issue with NS.

What part of the Theory of Evolution do you dispute?

@59

>I was pointing out that you didn't support your position, making the question you asked pointless. You don't say anything about what you think is figurative about the creation account.

Adam and Eve were literal. God creating life was literal. How exactly he went about that as described in Genesis might not be 100% literal and could've been done via Theistic Evolution.

>If you didn't understand that, you're not tall enough for the ride.

That's not an argument.

>Evolutionary Christians trust in "Science" as an equal or higher authority than the Bible, and that the Bible needs to be interpreted through a Science filter.

You can't fully interpret The Bible through science filter. The Bible is in large part God laying out morality in ways that we can understand. Science can't handle things like that.

>Evolution is complete fraud. Evolutionary theory is ignorant of how information and information theory works.

How so?

Blogger SirHamster March 23, 2020 4:32 PM  

Johnny wrote:How exactly he went about that as described in Genesis might not be 100% literal and could've been done via Theistic Evolution.
Again, you provided no supporting evidence for this being the case. "Could have been" is an appeal to fantasy and imagination.

Mommy and Daddy are planning a family vacation, and their 3 year old son jumps in and suggests, "Why couldn't we ride a flying unicorn there?"

That's cute, but it's not going to help the vacation happen.

Johnny wrote:>If you didn't understand that, you're not tall enough for the ride.

That's not an argument.

Didn't say it was an argument. It was a deduction about your ability to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

I will now add a conclusion that you are not tall enough for the ride. This is based on your position, your demonstrated reading comprehension, and where and how you choose to dispute points.

If you want tutoring, you have to be ready to learn as a student.

Johnny wrote:

>Evolutionary Christians trust in "Science" as an equal or higher authority than the Bible, and that the Bible needs to be interpreted through a Science filter.

You can't fully interpret The Bible through science filter. The Bible is in large part God laying out morality in ways that we can understand. Science can't handle things like that.

You aren't disagreeing with my point. Again, being an Evolutionary Christian is a serious mistake.

Treating Science as a higher authority of truth is idolatry. Christians must not worship idols. Don't bow at the feet of people wearing labcoats. They are not a sacred source of Truth.

Johnny wrote:>Evolution is complete fraud. Evolutionary theory is ignorant of how information and information theory works.

How so?

Random mutation destroys information. Natural selection filters cannot add it back in.

When the theorized engine of evolution cannot build up the genetic information pool, the theory that the genetic pool self-improves is dead on arrival.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts