Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Marathoner]

55 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

And you are also using an argument that can only be proven Scientifically, not Scripturally.  

Correct, because the subject matter of this topic pertains to science.


Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

You were one who claimed to have scientific objections to evolutionary theory, @theElect777, but you have yet to forward a scientific position in this thread. The topic isn't scriptural... it's scientific. Have a good day my friend.   

[Guest theElect777]

3 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

A similar objection to evolution is that certain scientific authorities—mainly pre-modern ones—have doubted or rejected evolution.[47] Most commonly, it is argued that Darwin "recanted" on his deathbed, a false anecdote originating from Lady Hope's story.[48] These objections are generally rejected as appeals to authority.[49]

 

It is also argued that even if evidence against evolution exists, it is a false dilemma to characterize this as evidence for intelligent design.[46]

 

The Discovery Institute has gathered over 761 scientists as of August 2008 to sign A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism in order to show that there are a number of scientists who dispute what they refer to as "Darwinian evolution."

 

Ultimately, the only way Science objects to Evolution is by claiming Intelligent Design or Creationism by God.

 

There really are "NO OBJECTIONS" to Evolution from the side of Science.   Which is why I have been posting like I do.   Science as a whole has basically, but a few, conglomerated that Evolution is the truest origin of human life.

 

This entire thread is a set-up because there are no real objections to Evolution from Science.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2020 by theElect777

[David1701]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

That all depends on what a "kind" is - something never explained in the Bible. It is widely accepted even in YEC science that populations can change over time (in other words, evolve). "Cats do not become dogs" is an obvious strawman, and I suspect you know this.

 

No, that is not a scientific objection. This is an objection based on your interpretation of the Genesis timeline.

If evolution were correct, then there is no reason why cats should not gradually evolve into dogs, or vice versa.

I gave no interpretation, only the facts, as presented in Genesis 1.  Your claim of "interpretation" is rather desperate.

[one.opinion]

46 minutes ago, David1701 said:

If evolution were correct, then there is no reason why cats should not gradually evolve into dogs, or vice versa.

Could you explain your reasoning and why a cat should evolve into a dog, or vice verse? That makes zero sense from a scientific standpoint.

50 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I gave no interpretation, only the facts, as presented in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 states that the sky is a solid dome. Do you also believe that the sky is a solid dome, based on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible?

Friend, there is figurative language in Genesis 1, 2, and 3. You are picking and choosing what must be literal and what isn’t necessarily.

[Guest theElect777]

25 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Could you explain your reasoning and why a cat should evolve into a dog, or vice verse? That makes zero sense from a scientific standpoint.

Genesis 1 states that the sky is a solid dome. Do you also believe that the sky is a solid dome, based on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible?

Friend, there is figurative language in Genesis 1, 2, and 3. You are picking and choosing what must be literal and what isn’t necessarily.

Please show me the verse(s) indicating a dome?

[one.opinion]

54 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Please show me the verse(s) indicating a dome?

http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/7/13/the-ancients-guide-to-the-galaxy

[Guest theElect777]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

http://www.biblestudymagazine.com/bible-study-magazine-blog/2017/7/13/the-ancients-guide-to-the-galaxy

I take it based upon this, you interpret the Creation scene could be also misunderstood by the Ancient Hebrews?  Moses specifically.   It does appear that some Ancient Cultures/Civilizations had a firm grasp on natural remedies like the Egyptians were able to preserve the human body and they understood the combination of Mathematics with Engineering.  The Ancient Greeks also seemed to have an introductory knowledge of the Sciences.  Really no one had a firm grasp on astrophysics until Galileo, and that was limited, but what the Ancient Cultures accomplished is rather amazing.

 

Also within the Book of Job, we see a glimpse from the viewpoint of God Himself discussing using Mathematics and the term (stretching a line/measurement) could very well be accepted as the original "tape measure" introduction to the known world.   But even studying other Cultures than the Hebrews, none of them ever specifically point to "Evolution or evolving" in general.   But how muddy the interpretation about our atmosphere within the Bible seems to be has ignited in you a possibility for Evolution within the Creation Story.  I can see where you're coming from.  I am lost however with God claiming a One Day scenario for the Creation of Humanity.   That would be a major misunderstanding by Moses, who himself, was educated by the Egyptian educational system and was second in line behind Pharaoh himself to be Ruler.   God spends much time with Moses.   Reveals Himself to Moses, writes the Commandments, it's a real One on One scenario here.  This is why I have to "pause here" thinking how God used One Day scenarios in all of Genesis Chapter One for Moses to misunderstand the Creation of Adam to be a One Day scenario.   I guess ultimately then, that leaves the question, what did God explain to Moses in terms of what One Day meant?   A thousand years, like twice mentioned within Psalms and the Epistle of Peter.   Or, are we missing something major here as far as time is concerned?   If I look at it from your perspective, to fill the void in Evolutionary terminology, is each day representing millions of years.   And would Moses have been able to comprehend what that amount of time literally meant?

[one.opinion]

5 hours ago, theElect777 said:

I take it based upon this

Reel is back in, friend. Please respect civil discourse enough to remain somewhere close to the OP.

You have said you know of problems in the science of evolution. You haven’t brought up a single one in the entire 12 page thread.

Please - do you or do you not have examples that back up your claim?

[David1701]

11 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Could you explain your reasoning and why a cat should evolve into a dog, or vice verse? That makes zero sense from a scientific standpoint.

In the nonsense that is evolution, anything can change into anything else (as long as there is an enormous amount of time available).  Why should a cat evolving into a dog be any more ridiculous than a reptile evolving into a bird, or single-celled organism evolving into a human?

Quote

 

Genesis 1 states that the sky is a solid dome. Do you also believe that the sky is a solid dome, based on a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible?

Friend, there is figurative language in Genesis 1, 2, and 3. You are picking and choosing what must be literal and what isn’t necessarily.

 

A solid dome?  Seriously?  Most translations nowadays give "expanse", which the sky certainly is.

You are clutching at straws.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, David1701 said:

In the nonsense that is evolution, anything can change into anything else

Let me check for accuracy here. Are your two biggest scientific objections to evolution as follows?

1. Which came first, blood or blood vessels?

2. Cats haven’t evolved into dogs, or vice versa.

For the latter, please scientifically explain why you and your cousin are not clones of each other. I think you should be able to address your own objection.