The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TrueBeliever37]

To me, a myth is not a lie, but rather is a very wonderful story. It is literature designed to teach, not a history book or science text. I do think that fiction is the very best way to teach values -- that's why i.e. Jesus chose to teach in parables.

Myth.

The Jewish calendar is a human invention, based on the lunar month, and adjusted for the solar year.

You are correct. Saying it is the year 5784 really has no meaning. It is most certainly not 5784 years since the creation of the universe, or the formation of the earth, or the existence of life. The existence of the Jewish year comes from a very famous Jewish sage called Maimonides aka the Rambam who lived in the 12th century, and mentally tried to figure how old the earth was based on the flawed idea of estimating the mythological generations in the Torah to be 40 years (I think). Although Maimonides' reckoning became Jewish tradition, he certainly wasn't the only Jewish sage to estimate the age of the earth. For example, Simon Hahasid in the Talmud estimated the Earth's age as 40,000 years. Kabbalists in Spain thought the age of the earth to be more like 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old.

Hi IC5559,

So, it's like I have been saying - it's conjecture. Some say 5784 years old, some 40,000 years old, some 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old. They have no solid knowledge, only their speculation.

What about God parting the Red Sea?
What about Noah and the flood?
What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?
What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Do you think all the above things are just myths too?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Sorry, but when you post in a public debate forum your ideas are open to commentary and debate by anyone reding them. That's what public forums are for.
RF does have a private conversation feature and DIRs you can use.

I don't mind you responding.

 

[Valjean]

Do you have any link you could refer me to that would show where scientists have created life in the laboratory?

Do you want PDF style links, or videos?
What technical level would you like to start with?

Where did you get those amino acids, and cell walls, and sugars and carbohydrates , etc.?

From the natural chemicals all around us. Atoms assemble into molecules and structures all by themselves, all the time, everywhere.

Cell walls and sugars/carbs are very simple chemistry. Amino acids are more complex, but occur pretty widely. They even rain down in meteorites from space. Once there, the monomers can polymerize, and fold into proteins.

You can do most of this stuff in your own kitchen. It doesn't take trained chemists and research labs.

Want links?

 

[exchemist]

Hi IC5559,

So, it's like I have been saying - it's conjecture. Some say 5784 years old, some 40,000 years old, some 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old. They have no solid knowledge, only their speculation.

What about God parting the Red Sea?
What about Noah and the flood?
What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?
What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Do you think all the above things are just myths too?

The difference today though is we have observational evidence now for an actual age of the Earth, based on radiometric dating of rocks and samples of meteorites.

 

[Sargonski]

But we do have self replicating molecules, and proto-bionts.

Do share friend .. self replicating molecules ..Tell us about these..

 

[Polymath257]

While I know there is a controversy about "kinds,"

No, actually, there is no controversy about kinds in the scientific community. Uniformly, the concept is considered to be useless.

I (1) do not believe evolution has really solved the problem/mystery of supposed evolved organisms from -- let's say -- fish to humans.

Which of the hundreds of steps along that path do you have an issue with? The overview is
fish--->amphibian---->reptile--->mammals
and humans are a type of mammal. We have very detailed records of the fish--->amphibian transition and the amphibian--->reptile transition.
We have pretty good records of the reptile--->mammal-like reptile transition.

There is some difficulty because most mammals in the Mesozoic era were small and didn't preserve very well, so the changes during that time are much less well-known.

Once we get into the Cenozoic era we have good records again, from the early primates and proto-primate, through the simians, to the great apes, to hominids to modern humans.

They may conjecture in line with the proposed theory, but that's about it. Because there is nothing to show that this type of evolution happened as proposed in realtime.

Not clear what you mean here. The evolution happened over the course of millions of years. It didn't happen from one generation to the next. And we have the fossil record documenting those changes.

What, precisely, are you wanting past this?

Only suppositions based on a pre-set formula.

You get things reversed. The formula is derived from the evidence. New evidence also fits the formula, showing the formula to be correct.

But really, from my observations of the theory plus evidence scientists think fit, it does not add up. Or show for certain anything. Thanks though for conversation. I appreciate it.

The problem is that there is *never* 100% certainty about *anything* in the real world (including its existence). But, we can use the known properties of things (laws of physics and chemistry) to understand the evidence we collect NOW and thereby understand what happened in the past.

Precisely what objection do you have in making a *deduction* based on *known* laws?

 

[Sargonski]

Hi IC5559,

So, it's like I have been saying - it's conjecture. Some say 5784 years old, some 40,000 years old, some 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old. They have no solid knowledge, only their speculation.

What about God parting the Red Sea?
What about Noah and the flood?
What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?
What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Do you think all the above things are just myths too?

Of course these are all Myths .. but as is the case with many myths and legends .. there may be some truth hidden in the mix .. your job - and reason why God gave Brain .. is to find the diamonds in the rough .. and which God was David Referring to "Spoke things into existence" .. doesn't sound like YHWH ..

one first needs to be familar with the story that is told .. there in the bible .. prior to any commentary on the parts mythological or those based in fact .. and Psalm 33 does not necessarily say God spoke things into existence .. not that this is not perfectly part of ancient mythos .. but this may not be how this passage should be read.. "By the Lord’s decree[i] the heavens were made"

This could be ordering the creation rather than speaking it into existence .. but the translation is highly dependent on whether one is looking through a polytheistic or monotheistic lens. This passage obviously has to be looked at through a polytheistic lens .. since the folks singing this song in the Temple of YHWH all believed in many Gods .. most worshiping more than one .. so YHWH ordering lesser Gods to create the heavens is a most likely reading.

 

[Polymath257]

none of this matters if it turns out I am right and you are wrong and that is the fundamental point you cannot sidestep.

See the thing is, there are only two basic outcomes:

1. I am right and you are wrong...you lose and I win
2. I am wrong...then we both end up the same way...kaput!

So in reality, I have hedged my bets and cannot really lose. You on the other hand are chosing to stand fast to your ignorance despite the possibility of me being right.

Ahh. Pascal's Wager.

Sorry, but if you can't see the obvious flaws in that reasoning, there is no much I can do. For example, can you think of a way you might be wrong about the specific properties of a deity? Maybe the deity doesn't want mindless praise, but instead prefers people who doubt and are honest about that doubt? Then we could BOTH be wrong and I would be better off.

You aren't hedging your bets. You are simply ignoring any possibilities other than the one you chose.

See if one who is an evolutionist was to actually think seriously about this, then id suggest you follow the model of animals. Let me illustrate briefly...

We have horses (and i have used this experiment with wild brush turkey's as well)...

If horses are in view of a horse who appears to be getting food, they all come over to investigate in the hope that they too will receive some despite not having the slightest clue whether or not that will actually happen.

So if an evolutionist was to take the horse illustration to its conclusion, then id suggest that given i potentially am on to something that could eventually result in significant reward the smart choice would be to hedge your bets.

Those horses at least see a horse that appears to be getting food. What *we* see is a bunch of people that seem to have deluded themselves. When we investigate, we realize there is nothing there.

Given the large amount of historical evidence in support of the bible narrative (both internal and particularly external evidence), one should choose Christianity because you have nothing to lose and everything to gain from being one and there are a lot of resources historically that support its narrative...if you bother to actually go and find them to check (which most in your postiion do not bother)

There is less evidence for Christianity than for Islam, for example. But I assume you don't think Islam is a legitimate alternative? What if you are wrong about this?

 

[Polymath257]

Do share friend .. self replicating molecules ..Tell us about these..

How about this?

Self-Replicating RNA

Self-replicating RNA derived from the genomes of positive strand RNA viruses represents a powerful tool for both molecular studies on virus biology and approaches to novel safe and effective vaccines. The following chapter summarizes the principles how ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi IC5559,

So, it's like I have been saying - it's conjecture. Some say 5784 years old, some 40,000 years old, some 900,000 to 2.5 billion years old. They have no solid knowledge, only their speculation.

Well, they reached these conclusions using philosophical arguments, which is NOT a reliable way to do things. It has only been in modern times that science has advanced to the point where we now have reliable information on the age of the earth.

What about God parting the Red Sea?
What about Noah and the flood?
What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?
What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Do you think all the above things are just myths too?

I don't think it matters. These stories are designed to teach me how to live. It is utterly irrelevant if they are historical or not.

Did the Prodigal Son exist?
What about the Good Samaritan?
What about the Rich man and Lazarus?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, but Narnia, Middle Earth, and 'Toon town aren't real. Real reality is ordered and predictable.

Nooooooooo! But I WANT Middle Earth to be real!

 

[Valjean]

What about God parting the Red Sea?

Even the Bible doesn't say God parted the Red sea. It says Yam Suph -- Reed sea.
Why would the Jews head to an impassable barrier, when the way out of Egypt was through the papyrus marshes at the mouth of the Nile?

What about Noah and the flood?

Could not have happened. Want links?

What about David defeating Goliath with a sling?

Was it David, or Elhanan?
What objective evidence do we have for these stories? Do we even have corroboration from other sources?

What about the axe head that floated in the water and was retrieved?
What about David saying in Psalms 33:6-9 that God spoke things into existence?

Just stories. What evidence do we have of their veracity?
How would something be spoken into existance. By what mechanism?

You keep citing legends and magic. History is full of legends, miracles and magic. What makes the Bible stories more reliable than the Aztec or Egyptian stories? We have no hard evidence of any of them, and nothing of the kind would be believed if it were reported today.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Well, they reached these conclusions using philosophical arguments, which is NOT a reliable way to do things. It has only been in modern times that science has advanced to the point where we now have reliable information on the age of the earth.

I don't think it matters. These stories are designed to teach me how to live. It is utterly irrelevant if they are historical or not.

Did the Prodigal Son exist?
What about the Good Samaritan?
What about the Rich man and Lazarus?

They think they have reliable information. That thinking keeps changing as time goes by. In the future they will probably think something else. Thinking something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.

Wow, so when YHWH said he brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, out of slavery, it was just a myth how he did it. Deuteronomy 5:6 I didn't realize that was how the Jews feel about it.

Yes, those last things were parables giving examples of things in order to teach something. But not everything is a parable.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Even the Bible doesn't say God parted the Red sea. It says Yam Suph -- Reed sea.
Why would the Jews head to an impassable barrier, when the way out of Egypt was through the papyrus marshes at the mouth of the Nile?

Could not have happened. Want links?

I knew it was the Reed Sea. I wasn't wanting to muddy the waters about my question. The point was I wanted to know if she as a Jew thought the parting of the Sea was a myth.

God lead them that way to show his great power. The Egyptians army chasing them wouldn't have drowned in shallow water.

Send me the links supposedly proving it could not have happened.

 

[Valjean]

Nooooooooo! But I WANT Middle Earth to be real!

I hear Narnia's lovely as well, now the White Witch is gone.

 

[Valjean]

They think they have reliable information. That thinking keeps changing as time goes by. In the future they will probably think something else. Thinking something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.

They feel they have reliable information. There are factual and logical problems.

 

[Valjean]

Do share friend .. self replicating molecules ..Tell us about these..

Self-replicating molecules show signs of metabolism for the first time

Chemical system combines two of life's three essential features making it one of the most lifelike yet

www.chemistryworld.com

Life's First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA, New Model Suggests

The findings add to the longstanding debate over which were the first self-replicating molecules

www.scientificamerican.com

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

 

[Astrophile]

And you know or believe these dates because why?

I accept these dates because I have studied geochronology and radiometric dating; I also know about their possible sources of error and how they can be corrected.

Radiometric dating of terrestrial rocks has yielded consistent geological time-scales since the 1950s, and has shown that multi-cellular life has existed on Earth for at least the last 600 million years. Radiometric dating of lunar rocks and meteorites has also made it as certain as any scientific conclusion can be that the Earth is 4540±20 million years and that the solar system began to form about 4570 million years.

 

[Astrophile]

Pure myth. No witnesses - Only speculation.

There are fossils in Cambrian rocks that provide evidence of changes in life, with the development of new forms, during the Cambrian period. There are microfossils in Archaean rocks that have been dated to about 3500 million years. These are facts, not myth or speculation.

 

[Sargonski]

Self-replicating molecules show signs of metabolism for the first time

Chemical system combines two of life's three essential features making it one of the most lifelike yet

www.chemistryworld.com

Life's First Molecule Was Protein, Not RNA, New Model Suggests

The findings add to the longstanding debate over which were the first self-replicating molecules

www.scientificamerican.com

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796

didn't get to the second one yet but the first is very cool -- thanks for the links -- built into the system these evolutionary wheels