Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Wesley L said:

If these models of predicting the history contradicts with God's words, I choose God's words as my faith in God is certain.

The other possibility is that discrepancy between what science tells us and what some believe Scripture tells us may mean we need to reconsider our assumptions about what Scripture means.

There were once big controversies about the shape of the planet and the order of the solar system because of assumptions based on incorrect Biblical reading.

[Marathoner]

It appears that the discussion constantly veers off topic and so I'll take my leave.

[Wesley L]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The other possibility is that discrepancy between what science tells us and what some believe Scripture tells us may mean we need to reconsider our assumptions about what Scripture means.

There were once big controversies about the shape of the planet and the order of the solar system because of assumptions based on incorrect Biblical reading.

True. That I do agree with.

If science had a rock solid method of proofing an old earth. I would be open to explore the idea of recalibrating how we should interpret the bible truthfully concerning the age of the earth. Natural law comes from God. Thus using it correctly won't cause any problems with scripture.
But up until today, I haven't been persuaded by radiometric dating, fossil data and the missing of the missing links.

And eventually, we will find out when we get to heaven. And probably all of us will facepalm ourselves saying... what were we thinking !

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Wesley L

[teddyv]

On 7/28/2020 at 7:55 AM, one.opinion said:

Hello All,

My recent discussion activity here has been primarily focused on theology - frankly, because I believe it is more important than science. Don't get me wrong, as a Biology Professor, I believe science is extremely important, but I believe it pales in comparison to the importance of our spiritual lives right now and for eternity.

There have been several discussions recently that have suggested that a discussion on science would be a good idea. I'm going to call out a few people here that I believe could be interested in such a discussion - @David1701 @theElect777 @Tristan @The Barbarian @Deadworm @teddyv

 

Thank you for the invite! I've been out in the field clambering over talus and cliffs mapping a copper-gold porphyry target for the last few weeks so I have not been around to participate. Heading out again next week so unlikely I can add much right now.

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Thank you for the invite! I've been out in the field clambering over talus and cliffs mapping a copper-gold porphyry target for the last few weeks so I have not been around to participate. Heading out again next week so unlikely I can add much right now.

That's ok, it turns out the scientific objections to evolution have been pretty scarce. Enjoy your time outdoors!

[Marathoner]

On 7/30/2020 at 11:12 AM, one.opinion said:

The other possibility is that discrepancy between what science tells us and what some believe Scripture tells us may mean we need to reconsider our assumptions about what Scripture means.

There were once big controversies about the shape of the planet and the order of the solar system because of assumptions based on incorrect Biblical reading.

Well said my friend. I'm glad I returned to the topic to catch up.

The Earth was proven to be spherical after Sputnik 1 completed its first orbit of our world. What this demonstrates is an incomplete or erroneous understanding of relevant scripture on our part. Science examines God's creation; to wit, that which may be observed, tested, measured, and quantified. As a scientist you're familiar with the scientific method, a problem-solving algorithm designed to prove everything false. That which survives falsification is reasonably assumed to be true until otherwise proven false down the road. 

Some of our brothers and sisters might not be aware that a scientist worth their salt sets out to prove themselves wrong. Hence the null hypothesis: I'm thinking the world is round but you know what? I'm betting that it isn't! A simplified analogy but I'm thinking it will do just fine. Peer review is something else...

Yes, a scientist (or a team of scientists) submits their work to other scientists not affiliated with their research who in turn to set out to prove them wrong. If the methodology of the original research survives withering scrutiny, the peers set out to discover if the same results can be replicated. Shoddy research doesn't survive the grueling peer-review process and often fails where methodology is concerned. 

"Hmm... controls were followed and monitored for a period of ten years. Fascinating... ah, but look at the sample size. 300 people? Hah, do not pass go! Back to studying you go." 

[Guest theElect777]

On 7/30/2020 at 11:12 AM, one.opinion said:

The other possibility is that discrepancy between what science tells us and what some believe Scripture tells us may mean we need to reconsider our assumptions about what Scripture means.

There were once big controversies about the shape of the planet and the order of the solar system because of assumptions based on incorrect Biblical reading.

Considering the majority of what is spoken about Creation and how we began was written in Hebrew, it's safe to say the English translation would be the worst Language to compare it by.   But I can assure you from being raised on the Torah, there are no references to evolution anywhere.

Edited August 10, 2020 by theElect777

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

 But I can assure you from being raised on the Torah, there are no references to evolution anywhere.

I don't think this is a reasonable standard for what we can know scientifically. There are also no references to cells, organelles, DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc etc etc

[Guest theElect777]

18 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I don't think this is a reasonable standard for what we can know scientifically. There are also no references to cells, organelles, DNA, RNA, amino acids, etc etc etc

Science hasn't even figured out how the Ancient Civilizations were able to shape discovered stones weighing 20 tons and smooth like it was cut by lasers.   Many of the Engineering feats have never been duplicated and we live in a time where technology is at its pinnacle in terms of what we've been able to accomplish.   I would venture to guess that Ancient Cultures were more intelligent than Science as a whole in many areas.   It really appears as time passes, we are getting further behind the Advancements accomplished as little as 5,000 years ago.   It makes me wonder if the Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Mesopotamian's,  or Greeks were not aware of DNA/RNA/CELLS/Amino Acids.

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Science hasn't even figured out how the Ancient Civilizations were able to shape discovered stones weighing 20 tons and smooth like it was cut by lasers.   Many of the Engineering feats have never been duplicated and we live in a time where technology is at its pinnacle in terms of what we've been able to accomplish.   I would venture to guess that Ancient Cultures were more intelligent than Science as a whole in many areas.   It really appears as time passes, we are getting further behind the Advancements accomplished as little as 5,000 years ago.   It makes me wonder if the Ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hebrews, Mesopotamian's,  or Greeks were not aware of DNA/RNA/CELLS/Amino Acids.

We seem to be getting off-track... again...

If I recall correctly, you were among those that had stated in other thread that there were scientific problems with the theory of evolution. So I made a brand new thread where such problems could be discussed. Yet, there has been absolutely nothing raised that has been anything more than half-hearted.

Please - anyone - are there any scientific arguments against the theory of evolution that you or others would like to discuss?