Quote (death_knight @ Mar 22 2022 09:51am)
First, I prefer to exclude the Bible because it's a dead end for me (has resulted in confusion, conjecture and pseudoscience). I am not completely unwilling to read the bible though I think it's fair to say "Show me evidence #2 unrelated to #1 (a book)".
Second, in reply to the 'monkey to man': Genetically speaking, Darwinism appears to be correct as it complies with the scientific method. Every living thing shares core DNA and this lineage can be traced back to the Greatest Common Ancestor. This implies we co-evolved with every other organism alive today and is apprent in our physical makeup (symmetry, organ placement and behavior). Does this qualify as proof in my eyes? No because there is still much to learn of chemistry and genetics. However as it agrees with scientific method it stands to reason that any other theory must meet or exceed the same criteria (time investigating and the provided results of engineers and scientists). I have yet to observe a single "religious scientist" that follows the same scrutiny as the rest of accepted science. So in the context of Darwinism, your bible is not evidence for anything because it does not follow the same scrutiny nor does it cite quantifiable facts the same as an academic paper driven by the scientific method (Theory, Experiment, Observe, Conclude, Repeat, Theory, Experiment etc.). Science (learning) is not a conclusive art rather it is a life long process subject to constant updates in what we know and what we think we know. Obviously this is a complete contrast to people who "know" God exists and "know" what happens after we die. By any other measure, the knowledge of the above sentence is generally agreed by academics to be beyond our capabilities of measurement and so falls in the category of conjecture and/or pseudoscience.
so we make the transition for arguing about "God" and make it a science argument? thats actually fair enough.
have you ever heard the expression "stumbling block"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stumbling%20blockDefinition of stumbling block
1 : an obstacle to progress
2 : an impediment to belief or understanding : perplexity
it means a person wont even consider other things while holding conflicting beliefs. so ya its necessary to put the bible to the side for now.
lets talk about science and living systems (life)
atheists have much faith in what they been taught. faith is just another word for trust. what i will write next i write to challenge your faith.
first thing first. abiogenesis is necessary for believing the darwin narrative. have you even given a cursory look at the problems with abiogenesis. do you wonder why we now hear things like "pamspermia" aka "the aliens did it"? due the advancement of science any one can see the idea of abiogenesis is preposterous .
now lets look at your reply
"Darwinism appears to be correct as it complies with the scientific method. Every living thing shares core DNA and this lineage can be traced back to the Greatest Common Ancestor. This implies we co-evolved with every other organism alive today and is apprent in our physical makeup (symmetry, organ placement and behavior)."
view this vid please it is short, the progression of science has not been kind to darwin.
Dr. Craig Venter Denies Common Descent in front of Richard Dawkins!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXrYhINutuIDr. Craig Venter is an actual scientist that works in a lab. if what he says is true it is necessary for multiple abiogenesis events. how many "impossibles" are you going to accept just to deny God?
will you come to the truth? darwin is false. an ancient cult now, from the mid 1800s. how can we talk of the other things until this is resolved.
when you get a chance please view the links in this thread
Introduction To Living Systems.
https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=85094217&f=90they are actually trying to tell you that stuff made itself (i wonder what darwin would say?). but evolution is a billion dollar industry so its understandable?..........