On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-25 07:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-06-24 18:06, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Considering how Darwin's Theory of Evolution is complete excrement which
>>>>>>>> can be debunked in seven seconds, God is the best explanation for
>>>>>>>> everything around us. <https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's some kooky shit, there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, they pretty much have no idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to believe the contrary, countless Darwinists have too only to
>>>>>> eventually realize that the theory that has consumed their entire lives
>>>>>> needs constant lies to be supported. We're supposed to believe that life
>>>>>> emerged from nothing even though that is scientifically impossible, and
>>>>>> that a series of mutations, all beneficial, led to us becoming what we
>>>>>> are today. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always negative and/or fatal.
>>>>>> We're also supposed to believe that we evolved from apes even though it
>>>>>> would take several hundred million mutations, all beneficial, for them
>>>>>> to turn into us. This is somehow science even though it is not only
>>>>>> contrary to all scientific laws but logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-D
>>>>>
>>>>> You find it far easier to believe in a universal invisible entity that
>>>>> has a thing for mankind, than to believe in some natural results of physics and
>>>>> chemistry. It's not all "mutations", bub.
>>>>
>>>> That is the point though: Darwinism _ignores_ physics, chemistry,
>>>> genetics and the rest to reach its conclusion.
>>>
>>> Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
>>> occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
>>
>> Unfortunately that's not good science. That's guesswork or speculation. But
>> atheistic "scientists" (so-called) glommed on to it because it gave them an
>> alternative to God.
>>
>>> But speciation is not just about survival. For example, a population (say,
>>> insects) that gets divided all of a sudden by some natural barrier, will start
>>> to grow ever more different, and ultimately cannot interbreed.
>>
>> That's called adaptation, or "micro-evolution." That's not what
>> evolutionists mean when they speak of evolution, where (for example) a
>> land-bound lizard turns into a flying bird. That's called "macro-evolution."
>> One does not lead into the other. For evolution to make sense we have to
>> have a lot better explanations for so-called "macro-evolution" then we
>> currently have.
>>
>> I won't be holding my breath.
>
> LMAO at "macro-evolution". You don't even know what it is.

Actually I do. But why don't give me your explanation?

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> RonB wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that for
>>>>>> a cell to turn into a human being, it would necessitate several million
>>>>>> mutations in a row, all of them very beneficial, to occur.
>>>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. Most were not beneficial, and died out. So your entire
>>>>> argument falls apart.
>>>>
>>>>Then the entire human project would have died out before reaching what
>>>>we are today.
>>>
>>> No it wouldn't. It didn't. Case proved.
>>
>>Circular reasoning.
>
> Yet you don't point out the absurdity of his "then the" argument. An
> argument worthy of -highhorse. Totally made-up and false. Just like
> his earlier "it would necessitate" claim.
>
> It's just one thing like that after another, and I lose patience with
> it.

So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:49:27 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"

Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
inerrant words of a god.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:43:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite
> God but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the
> universe.

Inshallah.

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-25 07:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-06-24 18:06, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Considering how Darwin's Theory of Evolution is complete excrement which
>>>>>>>>> can be debunked in seven seconds, God is the best explanation for
>>>>>>>>> everything around us. <https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's some kooky shit, there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed, they pretty much have no idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to believe the contrary, countless Darwinists have too only to
>>>>>>> eventually realize that the theory that has consumed their entire lives
>>>>>>> needs constant lies to be supported. We're supposed to believe that life
>>>>>>> emerged from nothing even though that is scientifically impossible, and
>>>>>>> that a series of mutations, all beneficial, led to us becoming what we
>>>>>>> are today. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always negative and/or fatal.
>>>>>>> We're also supposed to believe that we evolved from apes even though it
>>>>>>> would take several hundred million mutations, all beneficial, for them
>>>>>>> to turn into us. This is somehow science even though it is not only
>>>>>>> contrary to all scientific laws but logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You find it far easier to believe in a universal invisible entity that
>>>>>> has a thing for mankind, than to believe in some natural results of physics and
>>>>>> chemistry. It's not all "mutations", bub.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is the point though: Darwinism _ignores_ physics, chemistry,
>>>>> genetics and the rest to reach its conclusion.
>>>>
>>>> Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
>>>> occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately that's not good science. That's guesswork or speculation. But
>>> atheistic "scientists" (so-called) glommed on to it because it gave them an
>>> alternative to God.
>>>
>>>> But speciation is not just about survival. For example, a population (say,
>>>> insects) that gets divided all of a sudden by some natural barrier, will start
>>>> to grow ever more different, and ultimately cannot interbreed.
>>>
>>> That's called adaptation, or "micro-evolution." That's not what
>>> evolutionists mean when they speak of evolution, where (for example) a
>>> land-bound lizard turns into a flying bird. That's called "macro-evolution."
>>> One does not lead into the other. For evolution to make sense we have to
>>> have a lot better explanations for so-called "macro-evolution" then we
>>> currently have.
>>>
>>> I won't be holding my breath.
>>
>> LMAO at "macro-evolution". You don't even know what it is.
>
> Actually I do. But why don't give me your explanation?

This one seems reasonable:

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in
evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering
plants.

And micro does indeed lead to macro. Quantum leaps in evolution aren't common.

--
"You have heard me speak of Professor Moriarty?"
"The famous scientific criminal, as famous among crooks as --"
"My blushes, Watson," Holmes murmured, in a deprecating voice.
"I was about to say 'as he is unknown to the public.'"
-- A. Conan Doyle, "The Valley of Fear"

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:37:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly. Evolution is faith-based. No one knows *how* evolution actually
>>> happened, but they believe by faith in the "fact" of Evolution. (They
>>> might as well capitalize the word "Evolution" because it has all the
>>> creative powers of God.)
>>
>> At least evolution doesn't create a god who stacks the deck, creates
>> original sin, necessitating a redeemer somewhere down the line. Talk about
>> guilt trips.
>
> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite God
> but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the universe.

Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.

"The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
-- Carl Sagan

And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.

--
Your aims are high, and you are capable of much.

rbowman wrote:

> RonB wrote:
>>
>> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"

Not even close to that, but thanks for playing.

>Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
>concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
>inerrant words of a god.

It's accepted theory, vetted by countless experts. You know,
intelligent, educated people.

--
"These Linux vermin will sell their own mother in order to promote
Linux." - Flathead

Andrzej Matuch wrote:

>On 2024-06-26 06:34, chrisv wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>>>> As for Microsoft, they had
>>>>> manufacturers implement Secure Boot as a security measure which doesn't
>>>>> seem to do much other than make it annoying to install Linux with
>>>>> proprietary drivers.
>>>>
>>>> That can be turned off.
>>>
>>> For now.
>>
>> If the situation gets desperate, a Raspberry Pi, or similar, will do
>> the essentials. The latest one has a 2.4 GHz quad-core and 8 GB ram.
>>
>> https://www.mouser.com/new/raspberry-pi/raspberry-pi-5-sbc/
>
>How long before they demand that Raspberry Pis come with some sort of
>backdoor for them to spy on users?

Never.

RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-06-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>
>>>> Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
>>>> occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately that's not good science.
>>
>> Just because the knowledge of "physics, chemistry, genetics and the
>> rest" that we have today didn't exist, doesn't mean that science
>> couldn't be done. They had lots of things figured-out.
>
> Evolution is not one of the things "figured out." It's a theory. In science
> theories are supposed to be tested, not blindly believed as a "fact."

You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and experiments (e.g.
with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in morphology and
species due to alterations in the genetic code due to various factors
(mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination, natural selection, and
unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].

This stuff isn't incompatible with a god, by the way.

"He" could have planned it that way! :-D

But we have no need for that hypothesis.

--
Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his mathematical work, and
Laplace famously replied "Sir, I have no need of that hypothesis."

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>rbowman wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"
>
>Not even close to that, but thanks for playing.
>
>>Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
>>concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
>>inerrant words of a god.
>
>It's accepted theory, vetted by countless experts. You know,
>intelligent, educated people.

Accepted theory from the perspective of science, sure, that doesn't
somehow preclude intelligent design.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:13:27 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>
> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
> -- Carl Sagan
>
> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.

Heidegger asked the real question. Why is there something rather than
nothing?

On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and experiments
> (e.g.
> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in morphology
> and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to various
> factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination, natural
> selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].

Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
changing, but that's different!"

On 2024-06-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>> So, in other words, "Darwin said it, I believe it, that settles it?"
>
> Not even close to that, but thanks for playing.
>
>>Sort of like 'Paul said it, I believe it, that settles it'? Darwin's
>>concepts spawned a couple of centuries of revisions. They were not the
>>inerrant words of a god.
>
> It's accepted theory, vetted by countless experts. You know,
> intelligent, educated people.

It's not vetted, it's asserted. Kind of like the so-called "scientific"
statement that the covid mRNA injection is "safe and effective." It's a
mantra, not a fact.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 15:43:58 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite
>> God but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the
>> universe.
>
> Inshallah.

More or less.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-06-25, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-06-25 07:59, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-24 18:06, chrisv wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Considering how Darwin's Theory of Evolution is complete excrement which
>>>>>>>>>> can be debunked in seven seconds, God is the best explanation for
>>>>>>>>>> everything around us. <https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's some kooky shit, there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed, they pretty much have no idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feel free to believe the contrary, countless Darwinists have too only to
>>>>>>>> eventually realize that the theory that has consumed their entire lives
>>>>>>>> needs constant lies to be supported. We're supposed to believe that life
>>>>>>>> emerged from nothing even though that is scientifically impossible, and
>>>>>>>> that a series of mutations, all beneficial, led to us becoming what we
>>>>>>>> are today. Meanwhile, mutations are almost always negative and/or fatal.
>>>>>>>> We're also supposed to believe that we evolved from apes even though it
>>>>>>>> would take several hundred million mutations, all beneficial, for them
>>>>>>>> to turn into us. This is somehow science even though it is not only
>>>>>>>> contrary to all scientific laws but logic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You find it far easier to believe in a universal invisible entity that
>>>>>>> has a thing for mankind, than to believe in some natural results of physics and
>>>>>>> chemistry. It's not all "mutations", bub.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the point though: Darwinism _ignores_ physics, chemistry,
>>>>>> genetics and the rest to reach its conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
>>>>> occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately that's not good science. That's guesswork or speculation. But
>>>> atheistic "scientists" (so-called) glommed on to it because it gave them an
>>>> alternative to God.
>>>>
>>>>> But speciation is not just about survival. For example, a population (say,
>>>>> insects) that gets divided all of a sudden by some natural barrier, will start
>>>>> to grow ever more different, and ultimately cannot interbreed.
>>>>
>>>> That's called adaptation, or "micro-evolution." That's not what
>>>> evolutionists mean when they speak of evolution, where (for example) a
>>>> land-bound lizard turns into a flying bird. That's called "macro-evolution."
>>>> One does not lead into the other. For evolution to make sense we have to
>>>> have a lot better explanations for so-called "macro-evolution" then we
>>>> currently have.
>>>>
>>>> I won't be holding my breath.
>>>
>>> LMAO at "macro-evolution". You don't even know what it is.
>>
>> Actually I do. But why don't give me your explanation?
>
> This one seems reasonable:
>
> Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual.
> Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in
> evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering
> plants.
>
> And micro does indeed lead to macro. Quantum leaps in evolution aren't common.

You're quoting one school of supposed "macroevolution." Since this is
believed by faith it's not science (Gould used the *lack* of fossil evidence
to argue for his particular theory) — either way, it's a faith-based
"explanation."

One question that looms over philosophical work on macroevolutionary
theory is how macroevolution and microevolution are related. One view,
which is closely associated with the modern synthesis, is that
macroevolutionary patterns are fully explicable in terms of
microevolutionary processes. On this view, macroevolution is “nothing
but” successive rounds of microevolution (a formulation due to Grantham
2007). Stephen Jay Gould pejoratively referred to this kind of view as
“extrapolationism” (Gould 2002). This issue links up with more general
philosophical questions about the potential reduction of higher-level
biological phenomena to lower levels (Oppenheimer & Putnam 1958; Fodor
1974; Kitcher 1984; Sarkar 1992, Rosenberg 1997).

This is from an article on the "Philosophy of Macroevolution." Note the use
of the words "philosophy" and "view," (in other words, belief). These are
terms used in the realm of faith, not science. So here the "modern
synthesis" (a compromise between the belief in punctuated equilibrium vs the
old gradual evolution "orthodoxy") is a compromise between two opposing
positions. The fact that they can compromise on their beliefs means they
don't really know. They "assume" there *is* a compromise because they
believe (by faith) that there is the "fact" of evolution (even though they
can't explain which particular theory is "factual"). It's an attempt to heal
the rift in their religious beliefs opened by Gould (and others) in the
1970s.

Here's a bit more of their philosophy (also from the article's
Introduction).

Since the 1970s, theorizing about macroevolution has focused on several
important ideas: punctuated equilibria, species selection, hierarchical
theory, historical contingency, passive vs. driven evolutionary trends,
major evolutionary transitions, and more recently the zero-force
evolutionary law (or ZFEL) defended by McShea and Brandon (2010). One
philosophical challenge is to understand the relationships among these
ideas; another is to work out what they might mean for the relationship
between macro- and microevolution.

The fossil record is the chief source of empirical evidence concerning
macroevolutionary patterns, and so macroevolutionary theory is closely
associated with paleontology. In addition to questions of
macroevolutionary theory per se, there are also epistemological questions
about how paleontologists infer pattern from process, and how they
correct for biases in the fossil data (Bokulich forthcoming). In
addition, the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution
sometimes mirrors the distinction between paleontology, with its focus on
the fossil record, and neontology, with its focus on observable, extant
populations. For this reason, metaphysical questions about the
relationship between macro- and microevolution are sometimes difficult to
disentangle from epistemological questions about what sorts of things can
be inferred from different evidence bases.

And here we find the term "metaphysical" in reference to supposed "science."
(rbowman might find that interesting.)

If you want to wade through the whole article on macroevolution "philosophy"
you can find it here...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/macroevolution/

Personally I'm not that interested in their arguments for the particular
tenets of their various sects in the wider Evolution Religion.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 00:37:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly. Evolution is faith-based. No one knows *how* evolution actually
>>>> happened, but they believe by faith in the "fact" of Evolution. (They
>>>> might as well capitalize the word "Evolution" because it has all the
>>>> creative powers of God.)
>>>
>>> At least evolution doesn't create a god who stacks the deck, creates
>>> original sin, necessitating a redeemer somewhere down the line. Talk about
>>> guilt trips.
>>
>> I don't have the brain-power to second guess an all-powerful, infinite God
>> but I'm guessing there was a reason for how and why He created the universe.
>
> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>
> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
> -- Carl Sagan
>
> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.

You miss the whole point of God. He was not created. He simply *is.* "I am
who am." And Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am."

This is called faith or religion, although Aristotle (and St. Thomas Aquinas)
used philosophy to prove the necessity of God. (See their arguments for the
"Unmoved Mover.")

The cosmos may not give a rat's ass about humans, but God does. But the fact
that you oppose your belief in evolution to my belief in God, just makes it
clear that evolution *is* your religion — you believe by faith.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:13:27 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Yeah, and who created God? You don't need Him as a hypothesis.
>>
>> "The cosmos is everything that is, was, and ever will be."
>> -- Carl Sagan
>>
>> And the cosmos doesn't give a rat's ass about humankind.
>
> Heidegger asked the real question. Why is there something rather than
> nothing?

It seems like a lot of people think the "Big Bang" is the starting point of
the universe... but what caused the "big bang" and where did the material
that got "banged" come from? It's another supposed "scientific explanation"
that explains nothing. Another attempt at escaping from belief in God.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
> RonB wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>> RonB wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Darwinism, IIRC, doesn't speculate on the cause of changes, only that they do
>>>>> occur and some yield a higher probability of survival.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately that's not good science.
>>>
>>> Just because the knowledge of "physics, chemistry, genetics and the
>>> rest" that we have today didn't exist, doesn't mean that science
>>> couldn't be done. They had lots of things figured-out.
>>
>> Evolution is not one of the things "figured out." It's a theory. In science
>> theories are supposed to be tested, not blindly believed as a "fact."
>
> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and experiments (e.g.
> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in morphology and
> species due to alterations in the genetic code due to various factors
> (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination, natural selection, and
> unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].

No they bear out adaptation (what is called "microevolution"). It's a huge
jump between adaptation and evolution proper (what's now often called
"macroevolution").

And this doesn't even attempt to explain how life originated from non-life.
If you don't start from there, the Evolution Faith explains nothing at all.

> This stuff isn't incompatible with a god, by the way.

I don't reject evolution because it is incompatible with God. I reject it
because it's stupid. It's a theory not supported by evidence — it's faith
based.

> "He" could have planned it that way! :-D
>
> But we have no need for that hypothesis.

You have a need to explain how life originated from non-life. Or you have no
explanation at all.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and experiments
>> (e.g.
>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in morphology
>> and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to various
>> factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination, natural
>> selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>
> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
> changing, but that's different!"

When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:17:42 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and
>>> experiments (e.g.
>>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in
>>> morphology and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to
>>> various factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination,
>>> natural selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>>
>> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
>> changing, but that's different!"
>
> When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.

Unfortunately I don't have a billion years to observe the progress.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:16:15 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> You have a need to explain how life originated from non-life. Or you
> have no explanation at all.

You have the same problem with creatio ex nihilo.

On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:09:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> It seems like a lot of people think the "Big Bang" is the starting point
> of the universe... but what caused the "big bang" and where did the
> material that got "banged" come from? It's another supposed "scientific
> explanation"
> that explains nothing. Another attempt at escaping from belief in God.

Lemaître referred to it as the primeval atom but left the metaphysics
alone.

https://bigthink.com/13-8/lemaitre-priest-proved-einstein-wrong/

"As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any
metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny
any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt to
familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the Hidden
God, hidden in the beginning.”

On 2024-06-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:17:42 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-26, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:23:39 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do know that the fossil record, field observations, and
>>>> experiments (e.g.
>>>> with fruit flies), tend to bear out evolution, the changes in
>>>> morphology and species due to alterations in the genetic code due to
>>>> various factors (mutation, genetic drift, genetic recombination,
>>>> natural selection, and unnatural selection [i.e. human selection].
>>>
>>> Enter microevolution. "Well, we can't deny the damn drosophila are
>>> changing, but that's different!"
>>
>> When they change into something that isn't a fruit fly, get back to me.
>
> Unfortunately I don't have a billion years to observe the progress.

According to scientists the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. So if it
takes a fruit fly a billion years to "eventually" turn into something else,
what does that say about the odds of so-called evolution and its explanation
for the supposed origin and variety of all life on our planet?

Of course you could go the Carl Sagan route. Once, when they discovered that
our solar system was much younger than was earlier believed (and therefore
the origin and branching of all life had to take a much shorter time), his
response was that this made evolution "even more likely" because "it
happened" so it had to happen in less time than we originally thought.
(paraphrased)

This is how evolution "science" works these days.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:16:15 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> You have a need to explain how life originated from non-life. Or you
>> have no explanation at all.
>
> You have the same problem with creatio ex nihilo.

No you don't. Because God is both infinite and eternal and completely
self-sufficient. (Which is a matter of faith, but I'm dealing in religion,
not supposed science.) The human mind can't comprehend eternity and infinity
as we're limited to space and time. (If you ever want to go crazy try to
visualize eternity or infinity.)

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-06-27, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2024 01:09:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> It seems like a lot of people think the "Big Bang" is the starting point
>> of the universe... but what caused the "big bang" and where did the
>> material that got "banged" come from? It's another supposed "scientific
>> explanation"
>> that explains nothing. Another attempt at escaping from belief in God.
>
> Lemaître referred to it as the primeval atom but left the metaphysics
> alone.
>
> https://bigthink.com/13-8/lemaitre-priest-proved-einstein-wrong/
>
> "As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any
> metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny
> any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt to
> familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the Hidden
> God, hidden in the beginning.”

Except, if it's God's will that we know and worship Him, we believers are
obligated to "familiarity with God."

And, again, the "primeval atom" had to come from somewhere. So this theory
explains nothing about the ultimate origin of the universe.

Just as the theory of evolution explains nothing about the origin of life.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine