Evolution is Unscientific

I actually have an alternative idea based on naturalistic mechanism (oxymoron - nature itself is absurd, as much as any "supernatural" mechanism) which l truly believe may have happened on this planet and moreover, it would not even need a year to occur within.

I will not reveal it here though, as that is off topic.
 
It's a complex subject of which I only have a basic smattering. Are you at least familiar with the terms abiogenesis, bacteria ^ archaea ^ eukaryote, cell proton flux, ATP synthase?
 
I'm not suggesting inadequacy of knowledge on your part. It's just that I have recently done a bit of deeper reading and it only reveals deeper layers of complexity. It's not something that can be sorted out within basic parameters at an amateur science level, imo
 
You Tube is also an excellent resource for science explained in layman's terms, imo
 
It's a complex subject of which I only have a basic smattering. Are you at least familiar with the terms abiogenesis, bacteria ^ archaea ^ eukaryote, cell proton flux, ATP synthase?

Yes l remember a little and hope to get back into biological sciences soon before l lose my wits to old age. I want to work on something that doesn't need to be an issue, and if it were cured, there would still be balance in the world. I'm thinking maybe cancer (people will still die of age related cancer, but l'd like to tackle the non-age related types, deaths from which have accelerated recently so curing that, would just take us back to a previous balance) . Probably not going to get anywhere with it though.

So, what about these things?
 
You Tube is also an excellent resource for science explained in layman's terms, imo
I am just fine with my working knowledge gleaned via my undergraduate degree, which included enforced evolution modules in at least 2 of the 3 years, probably all 3. It was basically looking at charts and algebraic expressions for the evolution of Grendel from a hypothetical dragon ancestor and it benefited me nothing in the actual matters l pursued for my two dissertations.
 
So, what about these things?
Abiogenesis is the independent origination of life by proton flux from inanimate matter. The dust from which Adam was created.

Bacteria and Archaea are the simplest forms of life that existed on earth for billions of years, and would have continued to do so, except for the once-off chance of the two combining just once ever and never again in the whole history of the earth to originate the first eukaryotic cell, complete immediately with ATP synthase and all modern cell functions -- which of course went on to evolve, etc.

There is of course no such thing as attaching odds of chance to a singular occurrence. But the original bacteria/archaea endobiosis enabling the evolution of advanced life on earth is so unlikely that it only happened once, and has never happened again since.

As a theist I have my own thoughts of course. I am not a scripture literalist and my own belief tends to be a symbiosis of religions and my own experience. I'm not a religious dogmatist. I look to divine first cause. But of course it is not possible to assume the universe had any interest in evolving to produce intelligent life, or whether it just flipped out that way.

As I said earlier, when I look at the Hubble space images of whirling galaxies and exploding supernova, and when I consider the astronomical complexity of just one single eukaroytic cell, or the tip-of-the-iceberg Standard Model of physics with its building-block particles and forces -- I have to believe there is a greater intelligence behind it all. I simply cannot believe that, in the absence of space aliens, man is the highest intelligence in the entire cosmos.

But I cannot prove it. And I do not have enough science to be able to contradict findings by experts with anything else essentially than, as you say: I no-like, so it's wrong, man ...

On the actual question of evolution by gene mutation I will have to do research. For a start it has to be established whether that is what scientists assume, etc. At this stage I simply don't know enough to comment. I also apologise for not reading your OP thoroughly.
 
Last edited:
For a start it has to be established whether that is what scientists assume, etc.

Some scientists believe it doesn't even happen, l am inclined to agree.
Science is not a dogma, it is a process (the modern form tracing back to a Muslim polymath of mediaeval Iraq).


It is just a protocol for fishing, basically.

If you want to know science gone horribly wrong look at Thalidomide victims (may God be with them) and smoking.
 
Unsure what you mean. What are you referring to?

Tongue in cheek reference to your attitude of "... give me reason to leave this forum ..." which to my sensibility is rather immature and in stark contrast to appeals to strict rules of debate.
 
Tongue in cheek reference to your attitude of "... give me reason to leave this forum ..." which to my sensibility is rather immature and in stark contrast to appeals to strict rules of debate.

What?
I explained my self thoroughly.
I am vindicated by your own words. I am referring to your words and the other participants'. Very surprised this was all you took from the exchange.

Do you have anything to actually contribute to the subject of this thread? Or are you still persisting on creating a thread lock scenario?

I'm really tired of parrying with you Cino. Make with an actual contribution or leave me alone. Or i will leave.

The topic is evolution via gene mutation. If you have no idea why you believe in it other than appeal to authority that's okay, admit it. Don't pretend it's about my form. My delivery. My reaction to that other reaction that the other bla bla bla.
 
My money is on this: you don't have an idea why you believe in Evolution by Genetic Mutation. You will lash out or wait for someone else to lash out and then put your weight behind that. You will critique form and delivery. You will have disdain or fury at me.

... but still no idea why you believe in evolution by genetic mutation.
 
Yes, sorry, as I said I realized I had failed to read your OP properly, so I deleted them.

Sure, l don't mind because you deleted them. I don't hold grudges like that, my grudges disappear within moments. I prefer to think well of people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
I hope you and Cino can see that my anger is for intellectual reasons, not for weird personal egotistical reasons. But i do need to speak about the subject matter of the OP at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Can a person be a deist AND a theist at the same time?
I don't spend much time with dictionary definitions. By deist I simply mean I believe in God.

So sorry, I've changed the word desist to theist in my post #27
 
https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/19708/#post-345841

and by the way, the author you quoted about a separate issue was making out cells, even if just prokaryotes, can just self assemble, and if you had any sense of science, you'd know how vastly complex cells and their organelles are, like galaxies in their complexity but l didn't have the heart to tell you this nor the time as you just wouldn't get it ...

However I cannot look at those beautiful Hubble images, or contemplate the astounding complexity and structure of even one single cell, or a single electron, without knowing there is a God. An underlying intelligence to it all. IMO, of course


As I said earlier, when I look at the Hubble space images of whirling galaxies and exploding supernova, and when I consider the astronomical complexity of just one single eukaroytic cell, or the tip-of-the-iceberg Standard Model of physics with its building-block particles and forces -- I have to believe there is a greater intelligence behind it all

So ... just saying
 
Last edited:
I actually have an alternative idea based on naturalistic mechanism (oxymoron - nature itself is absurd, as much as any "supernatural" mechanism) which l truly believe may have happened on this planet and moreover, it would not even need a year to occur within.

I will not reveal it here though, as that is off topic.
I am replying more to the OP title. Evolution is not unscientific, it can be tested, and can be falsified, therefore it is scientific. Is the THE answer? That can be debated, and is so, but there is no question whether it is scientific, since it IS falsifiable, therefore, it IS scientific. I'm just sayin....
 
I hope you and Cino can see that my anger is for intellectual reasons, not for weird personal egotistical reasons. But i do need to speak about the subject matter of the OP at some point.
I see no reason at all for any anger. Discussion is always a healthy thing. We learn as we discussion, test hypotheses, and find facts, refute other facts with evidence, etc. Anger is irrelevant to the scientific enterprise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Yes l remember a little and hope to get back into biological sciences soon before l lose my wits to old age. I want to work on something that doesn't need to be an issue, and if it were cured, there would still be balance in the world. I'm thinking maybe cancer (people will still die of age related cancer, but l'd like to tackle the non-age related types, deaths from which have accelerated recently so curing that, would just take us back to a previous balance) . Probably not going to get anywhere with it though.

So, what about these things?
That would be interesting, but for millenia mankind has died. My suspicion is its part of the program of God, so instead of worrying about overcoming it (God already has that issue covered if the scriptures are at all accurate), we can focus on the here and now and enjoy the lives we have been given. That's more or less my thinking, but if you can find a way to help alleviate needless suffering? THAT my friend, would be a huge feather in your cap!
 
Back
Top