Posted on 10/28/2022 8:53:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a Believer, I have always had a hard time accepting the theory of Evolution. However, I now believe that Democrats are descended from pond scum and are the product of the infinite negative mutations that had to have taken place. Since mutations create biological defects in a species it stands to reason that Democrats are dumber than pond scum. Which is why we need to drain the swamp.
Popular science is always a generation or two behind real science. It takes a long time to trickle down. That's why the "New Atheists," abortion supporters, and LGBTQ enablers and others who screech "follow the science" are so laughable. Their version of "science" that they rely on was discredited long ago and they don't even know it.
Anybody who wants to do a serious read on why Darwin’s theory of evolution does not apply to humans, they should read Stephen Meyer’s the “Return of the God Hypothesis”. Darwin is seriously challenged unlike anything I’ve seen before, and the book has information and math not met for the average reader.
Evolution is real. But it can’t explain life on our planet as we now find it. Yes each specie evolves. But to go from no life to a Human or even a dog is not something that happens by random chance coupled with survival of the fittest. This is just not mathematically possible. There has not been enough time. And there have been several gaps in evolution with new species just showing up that have no forebearers.
Yes evolution happens. But there is no question that something else happened as well. Earth was somehow seeded with many species. And then evolved from there. Some think Mars was once a live planet and was hit by an asteroid. Others think we have been seeded from somewhere outside the solar system. Whatever it is, its not evolution. Or at least its not evolution here on earth. At least some life formed elsewhere and came here.
“In the beginning God…”
Some people divide their views on evolution into macroevolution and microevolution to resolve any qualms they have about faith and science being in contradiction with one another.
Microevolution explains differences in species, natural selection, advantageous mutations, etc... these things can be observed because the time scale for it to occur can, in some instances, be directly observed from documentary records of relatively quickly changing organisms, or indirectly observed through skeletal and DNA records.
Macroevolution, if described with a purely scientific viewpoint, explains how plants became animals, how invertebrates became vertebrates, how trout and chimpanzees both share a common ancestor. If you want to follow a more faith-based approach, you could say that God had a hand in the arrival of these big differences in the way that life exists on earth.
Macroevolution is impossible to observe directly or indirectly, there's just not enough information available to document the process. Puzzle pieces can be found in DNA, fossil records, etc... to make inferences and scientists put those puzzle pieces together with the best available information.
I personally have no qualms with evolution macro or micro, interfering with my faith. Evolution and Faith answer two different questions, one suggests "what" happened, the other suggests "how." New information supporting or disproving on one of those won't shake my belief in the other, only inform and refine it.
What I am saying is that mathematically macro-evolution seems impossible. There must be a missing piece. Darwin’s theory does not hold scientific water at the macro level. Possibly the garden of Eden was not on this planet. Whether biblical or science, there is something missing.
I’m working on a Theory of Devolution. Mankind is growing dumber by the day.
There have been lots of ideas about the evolution of life way before Darwin.
Anaximander and Empedocles of ancient Greece espoused their theories. Ibn Kaldun of 1300’s espoused his own theory.
All,like Darwin were limited by the knowledge of their time. Even the Navajo had their own evolutionary cosmogeny. None of these philosophies had the information we have now. Expect another newer evolutionary theory to replace Darwin among the “nature is all that there is” crowd. It is clear that the complexity of cells, DNA and RNA and epigenetic control of bio information, etc is way more complex than the simple bags of protoplasm the 19th century scientist knew.
Time and Chance are the creative gods of the modern biological synthesis.
P.S. Read the late Tom Wolfe’s last book....”The Kingdom of Speech” for a very interesting account of Darwin’s life and how him and Wallace both tried to have their ideas of natural selection as a driving force of evolution worked published. Quite interesting.
This is a joke, son. Don’t celebrate too soon.
An omniscient, omnipotent God can do it any number of ways. I’m more interested in why, not how.
Whereas, say, the Great Pyramid, I’d rather know the how than the why.
Evolution was a child’s fanciful tale from the start. But it was the only alternative to the God account, so people ran with it.
Our Creator’s creation is designed to evolve.
All have to do is take quick look around you and see all the moronic idiots all around you to figure out Darwin’s theory is BS
Ancient Aliens....
Not even that. It's an hypothesis. A theory has something to back it up. An hypothesis is a guess.
It's Darwin's Hypothesis of evolution. It was some old guy guessing as to how something might have been. And he was 100% wrong.
First of all, because it convincingly demonstrates the fact of evolution.”
Yeah, parallel units, male and female, can evolve. Got it.
“Darwin looked at the world thru the scientific lens of Natural Law from which is derived Cause and Effect.”
Darwin plagiarized most of his theory from Alfred Wallace. He was working in different countries and sent in his research and explanations to Darwin.
The problem with the big bang is the math does NOT work. Never has. According to math, if the BB were to occur we would need to be seeing 95% more matter and a lot more energy than we see today in the universe, or else the BB would not have had enough mass to cause the BB.
This is why the endless search for “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” that they never find. So, they promote the BB knowing that it can’t have worked, thinking they will find proof that it did.
Also, the new telescope DID not show much more matter, only mostly the matter they had seen before at better detail. And yes, they cannot “look back” FAR back into time they way an expanding universe should - they don’t see lots of forming galaxies. Only mature ones.
Wait…. but… but.. I thought that “the science has been settled!”…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.