Is evolution a fraud?

Faith & Science Conversation
81

Eeee lass. I can only speak for myself, on my trying to reconstruct God after brutal deconstruction.

My givens:

Deconstruction

Eternal nature. That is unshakable, non-negotiable. The Greek for nature, physis, through Aristotle’s physica, natural things, gives us physics. That covers everything represented inside the head from outside. Everything. Including all religious claims including ‘fine tuning’. Purpose, God, is not necessary to explain any of it at all.

Also, under deconstruction, is the fact that no matter how authentic and true the Gospels and Acts are, i.e. the posit that Jesus was God incarnate and the Holy Spirit preserved the accounts verbal and written, they cannot, must not be used to explain the mind, attitude, intention, capability of God as He is. They spoke from a mid-classical antiquity culture at its final confluence with Hellenistic thought. Including the words of Jesus. He saw Himself in The Scriptures according to a distinctive epistemology of the time that cannot work for us: at best He was right for the wrong reason [and that’s OK, He was that human].

God, Love is no Killer, no Damner. That’s not how He is. He fixes everything to the good in the unimaginable transcendent for all. As always. As He always has for all infinite universes from eternity. In theory or in fact.

The trouble is that even imputing the greatest of good will to Mary, Jesus and His followers, that they all acted with the purest of motives, it doesn’t make the mystery of Christ and therefore God true.

Reconstruction

Paul. The seven consensus letters of Paul are authentic. They bespeak the pre-Gospels Church, created by Jesus, by thirty years, that Paul, its persecutor-in-chief, was traumatically inducted in to. As do the letters of Peter and Jesus’ brothers James and Jude, all to a much lesser extent.

I want to believe in full hope of the mystery of Christ.

In the fact of eternity (meaning eternity is a fact whether Jesus is God’s proof or not).

Any use?

82

How? Why? There is no gap. Whatever couldn’t fossilize, over three billion years of ‘simple’ life and its origin doesn’t leave a God shaped hole. The gap is filled by nature, regardless of whether we ever work out how. And we’re closing that derivative gap in the non-gap. Rapidly. Essential reading is the works of Nick Lane. Without having read and understood such one can have no informed opinion.

83

Genesis 1:1…

84

Timelessly beautiful. There is, of course, no beginning, end of, limit to, beginnings.

85

You have a gracious sense of humor. Thank you.
That was a very long time ago.

That is all I am asking you to do.

It’s good to be “somewhere” where questions are not always understood as or meant as conversation enders. “So there!” sucker punches help no one learn anything, except maybe to keep a better look out, and perhaps duck more quickly.

I’m practicing asking questions. I’m already very, very skilled in opining.

Yes, sir. Much to read and think over.
In the meantime, I am hoping you receive what you want.

1 Like
86

It would be interesting to read your opinion on this particular video and research item it contains:

Featuring the creationist “non-scientist” Dr Nathaniel Jeanson - Traced.
In fact it would be interesting to read the whole biologos team’s opinion on it. Just as many have responded to this particular article - because it throws lots of cold water on the evolutionary tale, again asking the question - is evolution a fraud?

87

I don’t think that will be a good use of my time. It is a lot easier to throw shade on a theory than to support a worthwhile alternative. So until Ham and his team get serious about publishing results in accredited journal for meaningful peer review, I can think of better ways to spend that time.

8 Likes
88

How can it when the researcher has agreed to ignore any evidence that doesn’t agree with a literal reading of Genesis? That would truly make them a non-scientist by definition.

3 Likes
89

Information on why Creationist arguments are bad is widely available for anyone interested in doing the research. Former BioLogos fellow Dennis Venema has publicly debated Nathaniel Jeanson, and BioLogos contributor Joel Duff has interacted with his stuff repeatedly over at Naturalis Historia.

I am not interested in wasting my time responding to every new video they put out. If you would like to discuss a particular claim or point they make, feel free to bring it up.

3 Likes
91

Guess what springs to mind. Again.  

1 Like
92

I knew I was going wrong somewhere.

The trouble is I’ve run out of questions. Apart from out of politeness or… combat. I do ask questions of physicists.

I’m left with opining the logic of brute fact.

1 Like
93

Some brutes are imaginary.

94

Your video comes from an organisation with a lengthy track record of publishing blatantly untrue and misleading claims about science, dressed up to make it look like Christian apologetics. If there are any specific points that you would like us to address, you will need to summarise those points and provide timestamps, because none of us have any inclination whatsoever to spend forty minutes being spoon-fed by a video from a source that experience tells us is thoroughly unreliable.

5 Likes
95

When you try to discredit “Big Bang” theory and Evolution by saying they have become a Religion, you do no favors for believers of the Bible and YEC. You clearly state that religious belief does not allow truth and facts to be exposed while basing your understanding of data on belief in a literal interpretation of an ancient religious text. The modern worldview to which even many Christians seem gullible through social media is that truth is an opinion and there are alternative facts. Very sad.

4 Likes
96

An essential component of credibly addressing whether evolution or the Big Bang or anything else is valid is to be sure you are applying equal scrutiny to all sources. For example, Nebraska Man was not a pig tooth, but a peccary tooth. Ramapithecus is an ape, related to orangutans, not a monkey like a baboon. Your sources are inaccurate about the identifications. Lucy was not a knuckle walker - the legs of Lucy and other specimens show a clear upright stance, as do other anatomical features. However, the proportions and form of the foot are more suited for climbing trees than modern humans - A. afarensis was definitely not a top contender for a marathon. You are quoting people who try to make a big deal about Nebraska Man, which was promoted by only one scientist for a few years. But at the same time, many young-earth claims continue to get promoted despite having been repeatedly debunked many decades ago. The Bereans were commended in Acts for examining to see if what Paul says was true. Do not uncritically accept young-earth claims nor old-earth claims, but examine carefully.

8 Likes
97

Plus it was secular scientists using their own methods who smelled the fish off Nebraska “Man.”

1 Like
98

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.