uberhobo

I'm confused. If I were a christian, and I thought I discovered very strong parallels between my religious teachings and a theory of the natural world, I'd probably take that as evidence that the theory is true. How are you coming to the opposite conclusion?

Ezkerraldean

he got his ideas from observations of nature.

one's a scientific theory, the other's a religion. they're totally unrelated.
i thought christianity's central theme was the holy trinity....... but if you want to redefine what christianity is, go ahead!

what's that got to do with redemption?



evolution does not say that we are a product of chance. and no one ever did.

Flint

So we seem to have another useless attempt to reconcile evolution with Christianity by distorting both of them beyond recognition. All of which is completely unnecessary. Nothing to see here.

Llyricist

Isn't the OP like.... completely off topic? I was expecting to see some sort of explanation for how math and logic disprove evolution and all I got was a silly parellel.

nogods4me

If only I could find a way to bury the OP in my garden. Certainly my tomatoes would be prize winners.

Keith&Co.

Uh...Lots of members of a species mutate. There's almost certainly never ONE member who has the ONE trait that ensures survival.
Changes in the habitat select for those with the bestest collection of traits to match that new habitat.
The only way to compare this to Christainity would be if the Romans had invaded Israel with a list of randomly chosen Articles of Faith. Then everyone that disagreed with the Articles was put to death, those that agreed fully or mostly with the Articles survived long enough to adopt their society to those beliefs and teach them to the next generation. After a few generations everyone alive would be AoFers. Until the next invading army with the next list of Articles.
If nothing else, it does argue for the sincerityof the poster.

I wonder if the real intent is not to show that evolution, per se, is wrong. I think the poster feels that the 'atheistic theory of undirected evolution (and therefore an implicit disproof of God)' is wrong, because evolution (as he understands it) parallels his religious views.


IOW, he's not disproving evolution, he's proving theistic evolution. He's showing that evolution MUST be an invention of a skybeast, if we assume that Christainity is true and that no1nose's interpretations of litany and evolutionary theory hold out.

JLK

From an evolutionary biology point of view, childless Jesus left no trace. And without death, at carrying capacity there can be no births, thus no biological evolution. Ever. Other than those colossal flaws making Jesus=EvolutionaryAvatar completely nonsensical, it's an insightful analogy.
I'm going with: another ridiculous "evolution is just a secular substitute for Christianity, appropriating all its ideas" attempt.

Howard

Considering where this guy pulled his ideas from, you’d expect nothing else.

Keith&Co.

IIRC ,there are also amazing conclusions to be made about the significance of the Egyptian pyramids, if you round off certain measurements and round other ones up until you get the Golden Ratio.

JCL

Using the same logic...

"Rudolph the red nose reindeer" is just like evolution which is just like Christianity.

This is fun, who wants to go next.