- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Darwin’s Doubt: the mathematical problem of evolution and DNA
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
But I have studied the subject of evolution, both macro and micro.
Oh nice. Where'd you graduate from?
0
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:04 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
No thank you
You’d rather choose to be wrong about the words that you put into someone’s mouth because they may have a different view than you do.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:05 am to Darth_Vader
quote:and that is?
.I’ve come to a different conclusion than you though
This post was edited on 12/30/25 at 10:06 am
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:05 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
No thank you
You must be an evolutionist.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:07 am to WestCoastAg
Some pretty impressive scientists, while not all of them believing in God, have referred to it (creation), as a divine cosmic force, rather than accepting the complete randomness of chance.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:07 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Mo Jeaux
You supported the Hamas terror attacks a few years ago because "both sides". You should probably sit out any logical debates.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:08 am to The Pirate King
Bro is really bringing up Hamas in an creationism debate thread
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:08 am to The Pirate King
quote:
You supported the Hamas terror attacks a few years ago because "both sides".
Cite?
quote:
You should probably sit out any logical debates.
This statement coming from you is
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:10 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
What's your conclusion?
My conclusion, as I’ve stated multiple times, is that the Theory of Evolution fails to explain macroevolution, specifically the hypothesis that all life on earth started out as a single celled organism and became the myriad of complex life forms we see today, all as a result of a series of random mutations at the genetic level.
I’m sorry, but I find that to be patently absurd.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:10 am to Darth_Vader
It does and many don’t understand the argument at this point regarding a guided (or intervening) process vs methodological naturalism.
I detest the argument by authority (and hopefully this won’t be interpreted as such), but I did work in Cambridge for nearly a decade, having worked with Meyer, John Lennox, Denis Alexander and others at the Faraday Institute. Also, one of my good friends was tutored by Dawkins at Oxford who I had the pleasure of meeting on two occasions. Those were fun times!
I detest the argument by authority (and hopefully this won’t be interpreted as such), but I did work in Cambridge for nearly a decade, having worked with Meyer, John Lennox, Denis Alexander and others at the Faraday Institute. Also, one of my good friends was tutored by Dawkins at Oxford who I had the pleasure of meeting on two occasions. Those were fun times!
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:10 am to Mo Jeaux
It wasn’t necessary because I quoted him in totality as he responded to MY POST.
Why would I need to read it again?
You dimwits can’t wrap your minds around the concept that you can question the soundness of a very complex theory without positing a new theory.
It’s possible, and mostly preferable, to simply say, I don’t know the answer, but this generally accepted answer just doesn’t work. Let’s keep looking.
If my car won’t start, and most people think it’s because the battery must be dead, but I show that the battery is working just fine, then my contribution to the problem is very helpful, even though its not yet known why the car won’t start.
Why would I need to read it again?
You dimwits can’t wrap your minds around the concept that you can question the soundness of a very complex theory without positing a new theory.
It’s possible, and mostly preferable, to simply say, I don’t know the answer, but this generally accepted answer just doesn’t work. Let’s keep looking.
If my car won’t start, and most people think it’s because the battery must be dead, but I show that the battery is working just fine, then my contribution to the problem is very helpful, even though its not yet known why the car won’t start.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:11 am to Darth_Vader
once again I encourage you to seek out sagans arguments for natural selection wherein he addresses this very topic (“the math doesn’t work”). If you truly are interested in gathering information with the understanding that we do not and cannot have all the answers, I recommend a book compiling a series of his lectures from the mid eighties on natural theology called “the varieties of scientific experience”. I think you will find it engaging, hopefully moreso than a 10 minute video
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:12 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
It wasn’t necessary because I quoted him in totality as he responded to MY POST.
Why would I need to read it again?
This is worse. You even quoted it, and yet still misrepresented what he said. That’s not a good look. And then you have the nerve to call us dimwits.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:13 am to Darth_Vader
Astronomically unlikely probability used to confirm intelligent design over Darwinian theory could be applied to other so called scientific method fallacies, such as the origins of the universe, and the extraordinary odds against our existence.
But the author's hypothesis is neither testable nor provable.
The geological KT boundary and its massive biological effect on Earth is just one example the author might explain, or not. His repeated reference that 4 billion years isn't enough time ignores the earth's condition as a hot, molten rock at that time.
Pascal's Wager is how I reconcile my firm belief in the scientific method as well as faith in God.
How anyone else gets there is not something I'm particularly concerned about. The mystery is the beauty and why it's called Faith, and not scientifically provable Fact.
But the author's hypothesis is neither testable nor provable.
The geological KT boundary and its massive biological effect on Earth is just one example the author might explain, or not. His repeated reference that 4 billion years isn't enough time ignores the earth's condition as a hot, molten rock at that time.
Pascal's Wager is how I reconcile my firm belief in the scientific method as well as faith in God.
How anyone else gets there is not something I'm particularly concerned about. The mystery is the beauty and why it's called Faith, and not scientifically provable Fact.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:15 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
and yet still misrepresented what he said
How can I misrepresent what he said when I literally quoted him in totality?
If I misunderstood what he meant, maybe he should make his point more succinctly.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:15 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
This is a tough look
I don't understand this comment. Whatcha mean?
Evolution vs Design is something I've chosen to file in the "I'll just believe what the church told me" categories, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:16 am to Darth_Vader
quote:why do you refuse to explain what theory you believe does a better job at addressing this?
as I’ve stated multiple times, is that the Theory of Evolution fails to explain macroevolution, specifically the hypothesis that all life on earth started out as a single celled organism and became the myriad of complex life forms we see today, all as a result of a series of random mutations at the genetic level.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:17 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
How can I misrepresent what he said when I literally quoted him in totality?
If I misunderstood what he meant, maybe he should make his point more succinctly.
Well, you either intentionally lied, or, more generously, you misunderstood him. But instead of blaming him or not being succinct, perhaps you should just read it again more slowly, especially when he and others have told you that your representation of what he said was incorrect.
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:18 am to Darth_Vader
Is it possible that a person whose postgraduate degrees are in history and philosophy, even if it is philosophy of science, might misunderstand and misinterpret advanced scientific theories and arguments and then draw incorrect conclusions?
Posted on 12/30/25 at 10:19 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
Cite?
You have 63,000 posts. I'm not going back 2+ years to find what you know you said and still believe
Page 4 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News