Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Poem]

And to remind you, you are trying to draw a comparison that doesn’t work. Science is not a religion so any disagreement between scientists is not like a disagreement between Christians, a better example would be between followers of football and the disagreements between the fans of different clubs.

No that I understand why you want a comparison in the first place.

Your original point, as far as see it, was that Christians are divided such that if one asks a question, one will get a different answer depending on which denomination they belong to.

I am merely pointing out that that is the case with evolutionary biologists too. Denis Noble says Neo-Darwinism is dead (he actually means it is only a part of the explanation of evolution) whilst others are saying - no, all is well. There is some nuance to these positions - but the disagreement is real.

 

[sphenisc]

Maybe Tolkien vs Rowling?

Damn you were sooo close to getting us back on topic.

 

[Poem]

Being split over the musings of bronze age goat herders vs the research of modern scientists may not be the best analogy in the world.

(Acknowledging Darat beat me to it)

Explaining why eminent scientists and mathematicians take it seriously would seem to push back against your characterization.

ETA: And 'bronze age' isn't totally accurate....though I quibble.,...

 

[Darat]

Your original point, as far as see it, was that Christians are divided such that if one asks a question, one will get a different answer depending on which denomination they belong to.

I am merely pointing out that that is the case with evolutionary biologists too. Denis Noble says Neo-Darwinism is dead (he actually means it is only a part of the explanation of evolution) whilst others are saying - no, all is well. There is some nuance to these positions - but the disagreement is real.

And as I mentioned it is not an apt comparison. Different things are different.

 

[Poem]

And as I mentioned it is not an apt comparison. Different things are different.

Why isn't it apt?

Are all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Whoosh...

 

[Darat]

Why isn't it apt?

Are all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life?

Because science is not a religion.

 

[Poem]

Because science is not a religion.

Both proffer an explanation for the cosmos and life - one is teleological and the other methodological materialism.

Are all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life?

 

[steenkh]

Are all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life?

Define “modern synthesis”.

 

[Poem]

Define “modern synthesis”.

It's the same as Neo-Darwinism - melds Darwinian evolution by natural selection with Mendelian genetics. It's used in the articles i have been referring to.

 

[theprestige]

This

It's the same as Neo-Darwinism - melds Darwinian evolution by natural selection with Mendelian genetics. It's used in the articles i have been referring to.

This would go a lot faster if you'd just make your argument all at once, instead of trying to get someone on board with a rhetorical question.

"Not all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life, therefore [Poem's reasoning and conclusion here]."

 

[Thermal]

This particular topic never seems to get out its rut, here.

It's not so much the topic, as the way it's thought about. I find it intriguing.

Peter Watts did more to change my thinking on the nature of apparent free will in humans than any of the dozens of attempts on this forum.

A fiction writer actually earns his living by making the untrue sound convincing. I have heard of Blindsight, and will check it out based on your recommendation, though, so thanks for that.

 

[steenkh]

It's the same as Neo-Darwinism - melds Darwinian evolution by natural selection with Mendelian genetics. It's used in the articles i have been referring to.

In other words, it is not the current understanding of evolution. Modern evolution theory takes into account many factors that were unknown to either Darwin or Mendel, such as lateral gene transfer, epigenetic factors which include non-coding sequences of DNA (previously known as “junk”), and RNA genes. I am not a biologist; most of my knowledge comes from Scientific American. I do not have the impression that there is any kind of crisis in biology, or split, only excitement about all the new findings.

Where do you find those neo-Darwinists?

 

[arthwollipot]

Are all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life?

Answering the question you are intending to ask, rather than the question that you are actually asking:

Yes. All evolutionary biologists are satisfied that their current understanding of biology explains the diversity of life.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't care about modern synthesis or if strictly natural selection explaining the diversity of life. What I'm sure of is that it's not is magic. It wasn't some guy in the sky. I'm also sure that Behe is never going to prove Intelligent Design.

 

[porch]

Your original point, as far as see it, was that Christians are divided such that if one asks a question, one will get a different answer depending on which denomination they belong to.

I am merely pointing out that that is the case with evolutionary biologists too. Denis Noble says Neo-Darwinism is dead (he actually means it is only a part of the explanation of evolution) whilst others are saying - no, all is well. There is some nuance to these positions - but the disagreement is real.

Your own words reveal that you don't have a good grasp on the current state of standard evolutionary theory, and these weird websites you've been going to can't be helping. But let's set that aside. What are you trying to say with this comparison?

What Darat was saying speaks to the heart of the OP. When you say that evolutionary biologists, also, don't all agree, you aren't contradicting what Darat said, so why are you merely pointing it out? Is it important that the comparison be to evolutionary biologists? What if we said not all firefighters agree on the best way to put out fires? Who cares?

 

[porch]

This

This would go a lot faster if you'd just make your argument all at once, instead of trying to get someone on board with a rhetorical question.

"Not all evolutionary biologists satisfied that the modern synthesis explains the diversity of life, therefore [Poem's reasoning and conclusion here]."

Yes, exactly this. Poem, please tell us what you truly believe. Do not be afraid of them, because there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What you have been told in the dark, speak in the daylight; What has been whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who flame online, but cannot burn the soul. Rather, fear the One who can flame body, soul, and internet persona in hell.

 

[sphenisc]

Yes, exactly this. Poem, please tell us what you truly believe. Do not be afraid of them, because there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What you have been told in the dark, speak in the daylight; What has been whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who flame online, but cannot burn the soul. Rather, fear the One who can flame body, soul, and internet persona in hell.

Have you considered applying for the Mod team?

 

[Poem]

Poem, please tell us what you truly believe.

Based on my current flawed and limited understanding, Darwinian evolution seems the safest bet.

 

[Poem]

Your own words reveal that you don't have a good grasp on the current state of standard evolutionary theory,

And you have?

and these weird websites you've been going to can't be helping. But let's set that aside.

Nature is a weird website? The biologists featured there would disagree.

What are you trying to say with this comparison?

I have said it a number of times...I'd rather not keep repeating.

What Darat was saying speaks to the heart of the OP.

I have agreed with Darat that the division among Christians is dire.

When you say that evolutionary biologists, also, don't all agree, you aren't contradicting what Darat said, so why are you merely pointing it out? Is it important that the comparison be to evolutionary biologists? What if we said not all firefighters agree on the best way to put out fires? Who cares?

That is right - it's not contradicting.

I have already discussed this in previous posts. I infer that you haven't been following.