Great discussion, problem both John Smith and Muz have is that both perspectives are just theories. Despite most peoples belief that Darwinism is accepted fact, it is only a theory and has many problems as well. Couple of interesting reads below:

First is from Guardian (so you mainstream lefties cant complain it's a kook's source)
 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

This one is a little bit less mainstream (extract from book by authors who support concept of Intelligent design) but the issues raised are legitimate and cite scientific papers.
https://www.discovery.org/a/24041/

So unfortunately, neither of you can explain how the platypus got here

If it gives people some kind of comfort, and helps those who run the church make $$$ and at least control some portion of society then good for all you lot. 

I have nothing of value to add to any of the discussion here

That is why my approach -- in my own life, and dialogue with others -- is to provide evidence for God in exactly the manner of Jesus Christ did it.

The Evolution-Creation issue ultimately is a debate about God -- because Evolutionists categorically dismiss God being a factor.

I'll give an example of that. There is a fossil formation of fish swimming in a shoal, and a scientist did some mathematical modelling of that fossil - and found that the formation of the fish was not just them dying and settling to the bottom in a mass of dead fish.

Instead, what the scientist found - from his mathematical modelling - was that the shoal of fish were in exactly the formation as if they had been snap-frozen while they were swimming in a shoal.

The scientist admitted he had no idea how this happened, and left it at that -- him being mystified.

Notice that the scientist refused to even contemplated the shoal of fish being inundated by a catastrophic tsumani of mud that instantly buried them. No way will his thinking even go in that direction, because it would open the topic of a global flood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/science/fossil-fish-school.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/fossil-school-fish/

There are numerous examples of fossils of fish being snap-frozen at the instant, e.g. fish eating another fish

https://www.google.com/search?q=fish+eating+fish+fossil&

And anyone who knows anything about fish, knows this: when a fish dies, it is eaten up by other fish. There is no such thing as a dead fish sinking to the bottom -- and sitting their for years until it is covered by mud, and then turns into a fossil. No. The fish is either eaten by other fish or animals, or it rots. In have an aquarium, and when a fish dies, I never see it again. It is rapidly eaten up by the snails and shrimp.

But even when that rational, logical, scientific explanation is put to so-called open minded people, they will not allow their minds to think of other scientific explanations of how the fossils were formed, such as through catastrophic water deluge formed by a global Flood.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/

In the various comments by people such as tsf and Muz, you see a pattern in how simple-minded people think through things. Their primary mode of thinking is derision of the other side. They deem the other side to be so crass, stupid and crazy - that they see no reason to engage their minds in discussion of ideas.

You will find that someone like tsf has never spent any time thinking about these things. His mindset is "those people are so crazy, I will not let my mind think of those issues". That is the definition of being "mind-less". But because vast numbers of people are mind-less like that, there is sufficient mass of people to give tsf comfort of feeling no need think. His comfort is being part of the crowd.

Same. I'm out.

Particularly after AJF came in with the usual 'it's just a theory'. 

Muz, just like you were out, instantly when you read me refer to research about the dangers of MRNA. You're the type of person, Muz, who ignores scientific information as below, and will only listen if your GP tells it to you.

Title of peer-reviewed Paper: Cardiac side effects of RNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: Hidden cardiotoxic effects of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 on ventricular myocyte function and structure

"a recent publication by Schreckenberg et al who demonstrated direct cardiotoxicity of both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines on heart muscle cells within 48 hours."

https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.16262
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/halt-all-future-mrna-vaccine-development

The world is in a dark place when the lefties dont even recognise The Guardian as a safe source anymore.....

A wonderful example of Christian teaching influencing your actions there johnsmith(lowercase) ... "Turn the other cheek" becomes "simple-moinded people don;t agtree with me"

What would your namesake say John Smith (not all lowercase)?

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/john-smith-lived-a-secret-life-before-he-fled-to-australia-and-changed-his-name/tz4j2qybw

tsf, I care about you enough to attempt to shake you up to think about the most crucial question of your life.

And, no, I am not Iranian. There are lots of johnsmiths and John Smiths in the world. A Google search for John Smith in quotation marks brings up 33.2 million hits.

Started to address this on the coronavirus thread but thought you may not see it there. 

Your article linked is interesting. Unsure of what 'leftist' has to do with science regards evolution? Do the LNP or Republicans not accept evolution as fact?

If you think 'just a theory' is a gotcha I suggest you look up the term in the context it is used with regards to science. The article sets out unanswered questions in evolution and problems they have with it. That's fine.

This paragraph sets out the the premise. 
 
There are certain core evolutionary principles that no scientist seriously questions. Everyone agrees that natural selection plays a role, as does mutation and random chance. But how exactly these processes interact – and whether other forces might also be at work – has become the subject of bitter dispute. “If we cannot explain things with the tools we have right now,” the Yale University biologist Günter Wagner told me, “we must find new ways of explaining.”

They're not arguing against evolution, they're arguing about the different processes and stages it went through to get us where we are.

On the macro level they're in agreement.

They don't know everything yet and they may never know. It's a giant leap to say because we don't know IT NEVER HAPPENED.




PS: The platypus evolved here.

The Evolution-Creation issue cannot be debated on a level playing field until both sides factor in the possibility of the existence of God.

Otherwise, what happens is: Scientist-A proposes an argument for Evolution. Scientist-B proposes an argument for Creation. And the crowd laughs at the Creationists as a fool, and automatically sides with Evolution, since they totally discount the existence of God.

e.g. when scientists point to the fact that, in Nature, everything goes towards disorder (law of Thermodynamics). If you throw some beans on the ground, there is zero possibility that they will fall in the group making up the words of Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech. No matter how many times you throw the beans, not in a billion or trillion or a trillion-trillion years will the beans happen by chance to form the shape of Abraham Lincoln's words and phrases. The law of thermodynamics says it is impossible. And that is how scientists show that DNA cannot happen by chance.

But the fact is, if there is no God, then there is literally no other explanation, other than evolution, how DNA was formed.

So because people start the debate firmly saying that any God-related argument will be laughed out of town, those people automatically side with Creation because, aside from God, there simply is no other way to explain how DNA came into its present form, other than by random chance.

Also, in science, mutations go in the direction of forming disorder. Mutations do not go towards forming perfect genes. Muz, that is why Evolution is a theory.

The only reason you insist Evolution is not a theory is your full insistence there is no God. And if there is no God, there is no other way of explaining the world other than Evolution.

That is why, the first step in the debate has to be about God and his existence.

Transferred the following from the Coronavirus thread, since it applies to the 6,000 year" thread.



Look at what you wrote, Muz. Because you claim 99% of scientists affirm Evolution, anyone who contradicts that, you're out of here.

93-95% of Australians took the Covid vaccines. For you, that is sufficient for you to say that the vaxes are safe. Because you automatically follow the 99%, you refuse to see detailed evidence and reasoning. That's what I said: most people are like you - they trust the majority, and feel no need to bother themselves with facts and evidence.

To base the entire argument of Evolution-Creation on one single issue ... how did the kangaroos get to Australia is ...... being a one-issue thinker. This topic is so vast it needs to consider all the pieces and see the broad picture that emerges.

I said that, let's move on from a narrow picture of "how did kangaroos get to Australia" -- and go on to wider topics of the geology of earth formations, fossils, and even evidence from the science of astronomy and earth magnetism. And the issues of the complexity of DNA, and the immutable law of thermodynamics.

And you seem to refuse to tackle the question about God. Because, for you, your refusal to tackle the God-question means that, even when I tell you that the law of thermodynamics means that all systems move towards disorder. So if you have a sea full of chemicals, the law of thermodynamics says it cannot move from disorder to order. This means the bucket of liquid chemicals cannot, even after a trillion-trillion years evolve into the compexity of a mind that can write Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech, let alone the complexity of DNA.

Yet, because of your insistence that there is no God - you refuse to tackle those other big-picture subjects, and are happy to torpedo it all on one issue of "how the kangaroos got to Australia".

Muz, using that thinking, you ignored the evidence and followed the 95% who got vaxed, and you persuaded your family and friends to take the vax. Now, in 2023, you refuse to see the government data from US, UK, EU and AU about excess deaths beyond historical norms. And these excess deaths did not start with the Covid outbreak (you remember the appalling deaths in Italy etc). No, the excess deaths coincided with the vaccine rollouts.

It is too late to convince you of the vaxes, since you took it already, i assume. But before you die, there is still time to convince you about the Lord Jesus Christ, God and Creator of the universe. But to do that, you have to be willing to consider facts and evidence as your prime way of making decision, rather than following the 95%.

And even after you do consider Jesus Christ, the next hurdle is to ask which the hundreds of conflict Christian groups are the accurate one, given that so many contradict even on the core beliefs. Once again, facts and evidence and reasoning. Not blind faith.

I'll tell you what blind faith is. It is getting your jab because your GP tells you to, even when the Cleveland Clinic in the US. - reputed as the 2nd best hospital in the world tells you the following quote. That, my football-website-friend, is the true definition of blind faith.

Quote from the Cleveland Clinic paper: "Despite this, their risk of acquiring COVID-19 was lower than those who received a larger number of prior vaccine doses. This is not the only study to find a possible association with more prior vaccine doses and higher risk of COVID-19. A large study found that those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving three doses of vaccine had a higher risk of reinfection than those who had an Omicron variant infection after previously receiving two doses of vaccine [21]. Another study found that receipt of two or three doses of a mRNA vaccine following prior COVID-19 was associated with a higher risk of reinfection than receipt of a single dose [7]. We still have a lot to learn about protection from COVID-19 vaccination, and in addition to a vaccine’s effectiveness it is important to examine whether multiple vaccine doses given over time may not be having the beneficial effect that is generally assumed."

Link to the Cleveland Clinic journal article:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full

Reported by Dr John Campbell:
https://youtu.be/Rh7I7fKmzT0

again with using Dr Dre as a source

I wouldn't even get in an uber with this guy let alone take advice from him

Weird how you're so suspicious and untrustworthy of Doctors but the second someone who isn't even remotely qualified says what you want to hear you put a lot of credence in the 'Dr' part

Thats funny, because old John Smith can say the same thing...

tsf, even if you deem Dr John Campbell to be an idiot -- but if Dr Campbell cites government data compiled by the governments of UK, EU, CA and AU, will you at least agree to look at the government data?

https://youtu.be/97qRUqYLNu0?si=fYKdWUDOnYRImRQW

https://youtu.be/uWP6mGiDveI?si=FmrMs0I8BcroSjHL

https://rumble.com/v3kyvq1-more-deaths-in-the-vaccinated.html

Are you saying Professor Angus Dalgleish is Professor of Oncology at St Georges Hospital Medical School London is also an idiot, interviewed by Dr Campbell?

https://youtu.be/PnJ5T1Enwq4?

Are you saying Dr Robert Clancy, retired emeritus professor at the University of Newcastle's School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, previously Foundation Chair of Pathology at the University of Newcastle - is also an idiot, interviewed by Dr Campbell?

https://www.youtube.com/@Campbellteaching/search?query=clancy

Just wanted to reply to you, not the comment exactly.
I agree with pretty much everything you have said, I hardly come here anymore, but you have been spot on for me in this discussion.

What are your reasons for saying that?

Cheers mate.

Did laugh at 'thermodynamics' getting a run out here. (It's usually interspersed with lashings of 'entropy' which, strangely, didn't make an appearance. Was implied though.)

It's a go to for these cranks which proves they don't understand the science.

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/the-first-and-second-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-the-origin-of-the-universe/

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/second-law-of-thermodynamics/

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/laws-thermodynamics-biblical-creation/

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/in-six-days/john-m-cimbala-mechanical-engineering/

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/physics-unsolved-energy-crisis/

https://answersingenesis.org/bios/andy-mcintosh/

https://creation.com/thermodynamics-and-order-questions-and-answers

https://creation.com/confronted-by-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics

https://creation.com/john-m-cimbala-mechanical-engineering-in-six-days

https://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers

https://creation.com/some-thermodynamics-criticisms-and-answers-2

https://creation.com/next/en-au/trailers/understanding-the-law-of-decay-dr-carl-wieland

https://creation.com/skeptic-blunders-on-thermodynamics

I reiterate my overall big-picture approach: that the God-question cannot be resolved solely by arguing about Creation-Evolution. That is because, for either side, you have scientists who offer plausible scientific reasoning. Therefore, my premise is, to reach resolution, we have to get a further step by considering the message of Jesus Christ, which gives definitive resolution.

If you're open to that, let me know.

Shhhhhh....... Your articles once again prove they do not understand what the second law of thermodynamics is and how it is not in conflict with how evolution occurred.

A word salad of technobabble in multiple linked articles is no substitute for an understanding of scientific fact.

I wonder if you are smart enough to Google why.

It's not that the scientists who wrote those articles do not understand thermodynamics. (BTW, I did Thermodynamics at uni).

It's that, Muz, which scientists are you going to follow? For example, with the Covid vaccines - do you follow the government scientists and at Pfizer -- or do you follow the scientists at Melbourne University, University of Queensland and Flinders University reporting of the dangers of the Covid vaccines.***

I keep repeating, that the God-question cannot be solved merely be going at the most narrow issue in the Evolution-Creation question. For any points, you can torpedo the entire thing, both for and against, with narrow arguments. It has to go big-picture. Are you a big-picture person? In my experience, most people are narrow-picture people. To prove that, most people are persuaded by single arguments -- they don't want to put together many arguments to see the big picture.

That is why, my persuasion to you move to the next round, and consider the message of Jesus Christ, because that tackles the God-question head on.

***
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/spikeopathy-covid-19-spike-protein

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37626783/

They don't and you should ask for a refund because you don't have a clue either.

This conversation is over.

Please dont stop now guys...... 

johnsmith, could you kindly let me know your thoughts on how the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was taught at your university? I ask because I haven't really come across any dispute as to the validity of these fundamental laws and wouldn't think this correlates to your insistence that its not the "Science" but whose opinion of it you choose to believe?

Nevermind, please ignore... I clicked on one of your links above.... hehehehe fascinating 

In a nutshell, according to the Law of Thermodynamics, a system goes from order to disorder. I can never go from disorder towards order.

For example, if you have a bottle of beans and you throw it on the ground, no matter how many trillion trillion trillion times you throw that bottle of beans on the ground, they will never form into the words of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg speech.

When you have a sea of chemicals, no matter how many trillion trillion trillion years to give it, the Law of Thermodynamics says it cannot go for disorder to the highest state of order of DNA.

There are many scientists, like Anthony Flew, who was a famous atheist -- the Richard Dawkins of his era -- and towards the end of his life, he concluded there must be a god. But while admitting there must be a god, Anthony Flew apparently never went the next step to consider which of those claiming to be god, are actually the true God.

Do a Google search for - Anthony Flew God DNA

Interesting you mention Anthony Flew, I am somewhat aware of his work being a fellow admirer of Socratic and Platonic Philosophy but here is where you and I diverge...
Your unwavering faith that the "true God" is ONLY EXACTLY as prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church and the doctrine, dogma and scriptures it deems fit to promote..... Being the "mass media" of the last 2000 years I would have thought a seeker of truth like yourself would have done what you implore us "sheeple" to do and done your own research about God or Gods and his/her message and not just relied on the teaching of an evil media organisation with an agenda.......

I never said I'm Catholic, and I am not.

My apologies, I believed I had read something earlier that indicated you were.

Regardless, whatever your particular branch of Christianity then..... they all claim to be the one true faith.... which flavour are you?

If you've been in church, you're aware of the notion that there are core truths - vs. peripheral truths.

I've seen that the core truths are explained and argued so cogently in the New Testament - that it is possible to define the core truths of the "one true faith".

I've been around the traps long enough to know that any person who asserts that, is automatically branded arrogant.

But, if there was indeed no way to know what the core truth of Christianity is, then every single false-teacher (the New Testament warns against false teachers/teachings) would have the perfect excuse when judged by God at the end of time, with the excuse: "how was I to know?".

It comes down to how a person processes information -- based on "who you trust" or "based on facts and evidence". (same issues as how people process info on vaccines). Does a person just follow the biggest crowd? Or do we go on facts and evidence in a search for the truth, motivated by a love for the truth?

Jump around the question all you like the Old Testament you are using as a guide to your version of cosmogony isn't even universally agreed on amongst Christian faiths let alone other monotheistic religions.... Hide behind your arrogance (your word and I agree with you for once) all you want but your search for truth is motivated by a need to justify your faith not the other way around.... Don't fear being judged by your God at the end of time, the science you claim to have studied teaches us that time is eternal. 

I have been trained, in my professional field, to always test the reasons a person gives for their opinion. When a person gives their reasons, you can see their thinking. If a person cannot, or won't, give reasons, then that tells you something.

On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to perfectly identify people's inner heart motives. Most times, people's outwards actions mask their inner motives. Numerous times in relationships, marriage, business partnerships, friendships - people are shocked, "never saw it coming", because no one is an expert at reading a person's inner heart motives.

You surely have zero clue what my heart-motives are, given that all you've got to go on is words written on social media - the poorest method of communication because you cannot see my facial expressions, emotions or non-verbal cues.

All you've got is that I hold an opposite view from you on the most important issue in life - and, for that, you slam me with the vilest indictment - slandering my inner motives; when, in real life, it is virtually impossible to tell with certainty what a person's true motives are.

For me, when I try to form an opinion of a person, I see how the person reacts when presented with information that is opposite to their worldview. Do you mock, insults and jeer ... or do they show curiosity by asking, "What makes you think that?"

Most people have zero interest to know new information by asking "What do you say that?" -- because their main mode of operation is to follow those voices that they trust - rather than always operating on testing evidence.