Prodigal Son

quote:

---

His personality and demeanor are noticeably more relaxed and happy than he’s been in a long time.

---

He found Jesus.

quote:

---

Watch if it lasts.

---

I pray it does.

quote:

---

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

---

:cheers:

quote:

---

your reply mostly pertains to philosophy or sociology of science, not about the biological theory itself.

---

Mostly, yes. I’m not arguing that the evidence doesn’t support UCA. I’m saying that the evidence also supports ID (from my limited understanding), and that both are philosophical views at their core.

quote:

---

Whether consciousness, love, or morality are fully explained by naturalism doesn’t really bear on whether common ancestry explains the genetic, fossil, and anatomical evidence.

---

I agree. But it does point beyond naturalism/materialism.

quote:

---

Likewise, concerns about funding, publication, or scientific paradigms are arguments about institutions, not about whether the theory’s predictions match the data.

---

Agree again. But it does often provide a shield against challenges, as well as a strong motivation to stay in line. Challenging UCA is career suicide.

quote:

---

Are you arguing that the evidence for universal common ancestry is incorrect?

---

No. I’m arguing that evidence requires interpretation, interpretation is inherently biased, and that UCA is not the only logical explanation of the evidence.

quote:

---

Or are you arguing that naturalism as a worldview is incomplete?

---

Yes- in my opinion. Naturalism requires many brute facts and at least two miracles (the existence of the universe and life from non-life). Christianity requires one brute fact (God exists) and just a few more miracles. Naturalism can’t account for the most important things in life- the origin of life, consciousness, objective morality, logic, math, and love to name a few. I’m not saying that someone who holds a strict naturalist view doesn’t or can’t have all of these, but that naturalism/materialism is not the right tool for the job of identifying them. These things are immaterial, and they are as real as the air we breathe.

quote:

---

if evolution “doesn’t work,” what prediction of the theory fails when compared to the evidence?

---

Evolution, defined as change over time through natural selection and adaptation, does work. It’s UCA that I’m saying is a philosophical claim about unwitnessed historical events that requires at its foundation, a leap of faith (sound familiar?).

quote:

---

Right now it sounds like you’re making a philosophical critique of naturalism rather than a scientific critique of evolution?

---

Yes and no. I’m not qualified to make a scientific critique of UCA. My only contentions are that UCA is not the only explanation of the evidence, and that worldview bias informs our interpretation of evidence. So when 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists- that’s not nothing. I’m not arguing for a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. I’m just pointing out that atheists can’t afford to be wrong, and that 9/10 evolutionary biologists are atheists.

There are many challenges to UCA. I won’t go into them- as I’m an idiot. What I will say, is that I see equally credentialed people of equal intelligence coming to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence.


All of that said- UCA, if true, doesn’t preclude the existence of God (though it would require some major recalibration for the majority of Christians), nor does it preclude ID in general. ID, if true, doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God, nor does it exclude evolution. But if UCA winds up being true- I’ll stand in amazement at how God did it. :cheers:

I don’t think fixing things like cancer, before it happens is a bad thing. I just worry about how we get there.

“Don’t mess with Texas”

quote:

---

No doubt. But is it your right to resist?

---

Arrest? No. That’s against the law. Our resistance is offered in a court of law.

Sounds insurrectiony

Whatever happened to the “if it saves one life“ mentality?

quote:

---

So was that little shite in the video that circulated a few days ago. He got knocked down then knocked cold for his baiting.

---

Oh my. That sounds, um, terrible. Link? I might need to watch that one a few times before I can weigh in. :lol:

Ok. I read through the first 6 pages or so. Two others asked this question. I still don’t see a good reason why this psyop should work. I agree with you that (if this actually comes to fruition- meaning yuge and instant tech advancement) it would eliminate fossil fuels. But, if it’s just an announcement with no verifiable evidence, and no tangible, immediate effects (other than the tin foil hat and atheist orgies) then I just don’t see it crashing the whole market. But, people are dumb, so, there’s that.

As someone else said, it looks more to me like we’re being prepped for more monkey business.

And for those who think this invalidates Christianity- nah. This would definitely meet the criteria for the “strong delusion” stated in 2 Thessalonians 2:11.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
English Standard Version
11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,