• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Are discussions on faith and science two different catagories?

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In Hebrews 11:6 we are told it is impossible to please God without faith. That we first must believe that He exists and then second believe He rewards those who diligently seek Him. So then are we just supposed to have blind faith that God exists or did He tell us how we can know He exists? In Romans 1:20 we are told that since creation God's invisible attributes are clearly seen (distinguishable) being understood by the things that were made. So much so that all are without excuse. So what does the Bible tell us God made? It says He made the natural world, universe, and all life. What do we call the study of the natural world, universe, and life? We call this -science. So here is God telling us we can know He exists through the study of science. This would mean faith and science may be two separate categories however they definitely (according to God) intersect. I believe there is a growing popular movement among both atheists and people of faith to try and divorce the two as if they have absolutely nothing to do with one another. What do you think?

Examples of ways we see God through science:

The scientific law of causality states that anything that begins must have a cause. When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity the math predicted that the universe consisting of time, space, and matter, must have a beginning. This observation was confirmed in 1929 when astronomer Edwin Hubble observed the expanding universe. Now since we have never observed something come from nothing its just not logical or "scientific" to claim the universe sprang from nothing. We must conclude that whatever caused our universe has always existed (or is infinite in nature). So we have reached point A.

A. The universe was caused by an infinite source.​

This begs a key question. Do we observe anything in the known universe which suggests it was engineered? Typically when we observe engineering we observe features that tell us they were formed for a specific intent or purpose. Examples: The way archaeologists at a dig site look for recognizable design features, or the way marine biologists trying to detect intelligence in dolphins look for specific sound patterns, or even the way SETI astronomers look for narrow band radio signals coming from deep space if ever observed would tell them they were engineered. If we apply these exact same principles to our observations of the universe we find that it does display evidence for engineering in three of its main characteristics. In its laws of physics, in its systems, and in its life.

Physicists tell us that all the laws of physics like electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and speed of light, are all fine tuned to the exact parameters needed for life to be possible. If any of these factors were out of proportion slightly then none of the elements (especially carbon so necessary for life) could even exist.

British Astrophysicist George Ellis is quotes as saying, “Amazing fine tuning occurs in all the laws that makes this possible…” He went on to say that he finds it difficult not to use the word miraculous when describing their complexity.

If we just step back and take and honest look and the systems of our universe we observes something truly remarkable. Like the way our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky-way’s chaotic spiral arms. Our sun is said to be actually much smaller than the majority of the stars we observe in the universe yet it is the perfect size and temperature to allow for life. Our own moon’s size and distance from earth are the exact parameters needed to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun. This is what creates the food chain without which there could be no life here. The very arrangement of our solar system with the gas giants like Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter all protecting us from rogue meteors out in the outer rim. Scientists tell us that if Jupiter were removed from its current orbit then the impact rate of meteors on earth would increase by a thousand times what we see today. Then consider the magnetic field around our planet. Did you know we live on the only known planet with a solid surface that is still circulating its liquid iron core? This is what generates the magnetic force field around our planet which protects us from constant bombardment of solar radiation. Without that field life here would have long since been completely sterilized. Our atmosphere is the perfect mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. Our land to water mass ratio is the perfect ratio. I could go on and on. There are literally hundreds of conditions like these all working together making life possible. We are told that they must exist at the exact parameters they exist at, at the exact locations they exist at, and even all at the same time in the universe just for life to even be possible.

Esteemed physicist and Nobel Prize winner Arno Penzias said “Astronomy leads us to a unique event. A universe with the exact conditions required to permit life. One with an underlying (you might say) supernatural plan.”

Finally if we examine life itself we find that all living organisms contain a DNA code that is the blue prints to life. You have a copy of your entire DNA in every single cell of your body. Scientists tell us that this code warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison. Several theories have been proposed as to how this code could have formed through natural causes however to date there is no evidence supporting them. We would have to have at least one example of an observed random mutation adding new (gene increasing) and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism. Nothing of the sort has ever been observed. From the observable science we must conclude that the laws of physics, systems of the universe, and life were all engineered. This brings us to point B.

B. the cause of the universe must possess intelligence.​

If we add points A and B there is only one term in the English language that is defined and an infinite intelligent creator of the universe and life.

I’ll let you guess what that term is…
 
Last edited:

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I don't think anyone sees God through science.

To me, that's like a baby seeing their mom through
the chemical analysis of her biological makeup
done by a sixth grader.

God says since man in all his wisdom and knowledge chose to serve the creation in place of the Creator,
He would let man believe his own delusions, and calls man's wisdom and knowledge even at best foolishness.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think anyone sees God through science.

To me, that's like a baby seeing their mom through
the chemical analysis of her biological makeup
done by a sixth grader.

God says since man in all his wisdom and knowledge chose to serve the creation in place of the Creator,
He would let man believe his own delusions, and calls man's wisdom and knowledge even at best foolishness.

So should we just tear Romans 1:20 from all of our Bibles?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

dqhall

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2015
7,547
4,172
Florida
Visit site
✟811,723.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I don't think anyone sees God through science.

To me, that's like a baby seeing their mom through
the chemical analysis of her biological makeup
done by a sixth grader.

God says since man in all his wisdom and knowledge chose to serve the creation in place of the Creator,
He would let man believe his own delusions, and calls man's wisdom and knowledge even at best foolishness.
If God is truth and science is the study of truth, there should be no conflict. Many people have used the Bible to do cruel and inhumane things. Many have used science to do cruel and inhumane things. One who rightly discerns the truth might gain glory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,479
Jersey
✟823,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Making the argument that the study of science can cause a person to become baffled that there would not be a God behind everything is one thing. Making the argument that the Bible lays out scientific propositions would be a different thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I always go with scripture. But science helps is some cases to better understand scripture.

We live in a society that thinks they are wise beyond their intellects. They tag everything as "natural occurring" and try compartmentalize science from faith. So friend if our scriptures teach (Heb. 11:6) that the first step to faith is just believing in God's existence, and that this belief can be derived from observing creation (Rom. 1:20), then doesn't it behoove us as believers not to neglect this most important tool to reach our current society? I personally think that my brothers and sisters who refuse to just learn the basics of todays popular science and how to respond to those which attack faith in Christ, I believe they are just "coping out." Especially since the scriptures command us to be ready always to give an answer for the reason of the hope that lies within us. (1 Peter 3:15)
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Making the argument that the study of science can cause a person to become baffled that there would not be a God behind everything is one thing. Making the argument that the Bible lays out scientific propositions would be a different thing

I'm arguing that the Bible claims we can see God "through a study of science," meaning an honest examination of the created universe. So much so that no one will be excused for not knowing He existed on judgment day. Not sure what you mean by "laying out scientific propositions?"
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dirk1540
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,284
4,511
✟358,220.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Theology is science.

In the last two centuries, the centuries of modern scientism, many different schools of thought have argued that theology is a pseudo or fake science. That is to say, systematic theologians may claim to state objective truths, but this is mere pretense. In modern sciences, when we want to know the truth of a matter, we form hypotheses and subject those hypotheses to empirical validation. And once a hypothesis has stood the test of direct or indirect empirical validation, we then accept it as true. But scientists have been quick to point out that theological propositions cannot be tested in this way.

Now, we should all admit that at least in one sense this is true. While we can place a liquid in a test tube and analyze its qualities, no one can put God in a test tube to see if God is Trinity. While we can use instruments to calculate the size of things, there is no instrument that can measure God to see if he is infinite. For this reason, many modern people have argued that at best, theologians are like artists and poets, who project their feelings, religious intuitions and sentiments. We're only fooling ourselves and others when we act as if we are describing objective facts. But there is a sense in which we can verify theological propositions empirically. It's all a matter of what we count as empirical evidence for and against our viewpoints.
http://eplayer.thirdmill.org/player/lessons/BST3text.html
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,946
11,096
okie
✟222,536.00
Faith
Anabaptist
If God is truth and science is the study of truth, there should be no conflict. Many people have used the Bible to do cruel and inhumane things. Many have used science to do cruel and inhumane things. One who rightly discerns the truth might gain glory.
No one has ever shown that man's science even cares about truth, no, not at all - God says otherwise in His Word, and confirms what has happened in all the so-called science categories - man's wisdom and knowledge remains foolishness serving the creation instead of the Creator, and man's ways are never God's Ways - His Ways are so much HIGHER as HE SAYS.
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Interesting but it doesn't really speak to the point I originally made. No we cannot put God in a test tube or measure His size etc... However I am saying that God tells us we can detect Him through studying what He made. If you go back to my original post I gave scientific evidence that A. the universe has an infinite source, and B. the universe has an intelligent source. There is only one term I am aware of that is defined as an infinite intelligent creator of the universe and life. Note here I am not applying ANY "theology" to come to this conclusion but only relying on science.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,800
7,818
65
Massachusetts
✟389,194.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The scientific law of causality states that anything that begins must have a cause.
I'm not familiar with that as a law of science, and it runs into obvious problems with some quantum events.
We must conclude that whatever caused our universe has always existed (or is infinite in nature).
Or that the universe itself has always existed or is infinite in nature.
Physicists tell us that all the laws of physics like electromagnetic forces, nuclear intensity, strength of gravity, mass of material, temperature, excitation of nuclei, and speed of light, are all fine tuned to the exact parameters needed for life to be possible.
We have no idea, however, how many combinations of physical laws and constants would permit something like life to exist. What we know is that small deviations from the known values would not permit anything like our life to exist; beyond that we cannot say. We also have no idea whether the constants are independent of each other, how they might vary, or really anything at all about the probability distribution of different universes. So we really cannot conclude anything about how probable the observed universe is.
If we just step back and take and honest look and the systems of our universe we observes something truly remarkable. Like the way our solar system is perfectly situated in a clear safe zone rather than one of our milky-way’s chaotic spiral arms. Our sun is said to be actually much smaller than the majority of the stars we observe in the universe yet it is the perfect size and temperature to allow for life. Our own moon’s size and distance from earth are the exact parameters needed to stabilize our 23 degree axis tilt with the sun. This is what creates the food chain without which there could be no life here. The very arrangement of our solar system with the gas giants like Neptune, Saturn, and Jupiter all protecting us from rogue meteors out in the outer rim. Scientists tell us that if Jupiter were removed from its current orbit then the impact rate of meteors on earth would increase by a thousand times what we see today.
The fine-tuning argument at least points to a genuine puzzle about the laws and constants of nature. The argument about the solar system doesn't. It's inevitable that life would only exist in systems that permit it, whether such are common or rare. And the more we learn about exoplanets, the more there seem to be of them, and the less surprising our own system seems.
Then consider the magnetic field around our planet. Did you know we live on the only known planet with a solid surface that is still circulating its liquid iron core? This is what generates the magnetic force field around our planet which protects us from constant bombardment of solar radiation. Without that field life here would have long since been completely sterilized.
No, it's the atmosphere that does the bulk of the job protecting us from cosmic radiation. If you want to see what cosmic radiation would look like without a magnetic field, go to the North or South Pole, where the field has no effect. Cosmic radiation is little higher there, but it's hardly enough to destroy life. (Now, it may be that a magnetic field protects the atmosphere from erosion by the solar wind, but this is unclear. Venus has little magnetic field but a thick atmosphere.)

Our atmosphere is the perfect mixture of nitrogen and oxygen.
The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has varied wildly over the course of Earth's history, so this is plainly false.
Our land to water mass ratio is the perfect ratio.
Huh?
We would have to have at least one example of a random mutation adding new (gene increasing) and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism.
Wait, what? So mutations that add new, beneficial information to the genome are possible for single-celled organisms, but somehow prohibited for multi-celled ones? How? Also, we do see such mutations in multi-celled organisms.

Speaking as a scientist and a Christian, I find this entire line of argument (except perhaps the fine-tuning part) unpersuasive, questionable and likely to undermine the credibility of Christianity for those who know the science well.
 
Upvote 0

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,479
Jersey
✟823,285.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm arguing that the Bible claims we can see God "through a study of science," meaning an honest examination of the created universe. So much so that no one will be excused for not knowing He existed on judgment day. Not sure what you mean by "laying out scientific propositions?"
We are in general agreement. Although my understanding of atheists would be more complicated, because of the times. I definitely do not believe that atheists are not being sincere in what they claim to believe. But how much of this is complicated by living in a post Enlightenment world? How many atheists had to first think about God’s existence before they decided to reject it? And MOST people will never even study arguments for this in their lives.

You mentioned that faith is also a needed ingredient, how many people would choose theism instead if their earliest memories of pondering general revelation included at least a small ingredient of faith? And of course that’s way less likely to happen with atheist parents, which are everywhere today. How many chose theism, then later in life found out that they had been spoon fed ignorant intellectual reasons for it, so now their atheism also contains a ton of hostility towards theism that you would have to cut through?

I’m of the opinion that if the scriptures were written post Enlightenment some things would have been worded differently, maybe instead of ‘They are without excuse’ something like ‘They have been lead astray with crafty words.’ Arguing the general existence of God/Gods wasn’t the big issue when they were written. ‘Which God(s)’ was the major argument of those days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not familiar with that as a law of science, and it runs into obvious problems with some quantum events.

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects. It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

it runs into obvious problems with some quantum events.

Since you failed to give an example I can only assume you are referring to things like quantum fluctuations. In the below two short videos I discuss these and point out their various problems. Since we have no way to physically “observe” a quantum event and what exactly is happening, this is far from actual “observable” science. Before you question me here you also might want to take a quick look at the comments to the videos to insure the answers have not already been present there. The typical argument I here are things like “we can measure and observe the effects.” But there it is… that nasty ugly “cause and effect law” sticking its head in there where it doesn’t belong. Think about it for a moment. If you are arguing that the law of causality runs into problems when it comes to quantum events, then how can you turn around and depend on the law of causality to base your conclusions of observed effects? Isn’t that a double standard?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VG5zVXCnMQ&t=9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLITvDfPqG4

Or that the universe itself has always existed or is infinite in nature.

Did you miss the part about Einstein’s theory predicting otherwise and Hubble observing otherwise?


We have no idea, however, how many combinations of physical laws and constants would permit something like life to exist. What we know is that small deviations from the known values would not permit anything like our life to exist; beyond that we cannot say. We also have no idea whether the constants are independent of each other, how they might vary, or really anything at all about the probability distribution of different universes. So we really cannot conclude anything about how probable the observed universe is.

Well since we only know of one “kind” of life and have no evidence that any other “kind” can exist then isn’t science supposed to be based on observation? Therefore it is logical to asses that based on our current “observations” the laws of physics are required to be set at their exact parameters for life to be possible. This is exactly what Astrophysicist George Ellis was saying.


The fine-tuning argument at least points to a genuine puzzle about the laws and constants of nature. The argument about the solar system doesn't. It's inevitable that life would only exist in systems that permit it, whether such are common or rare. And the more we learn about exoplanets, the more there seem to be of them, and the less surprising our own system seems.

Can you please give me an example of another planet that has conditions suitable for life where it also exists? If not then, when we talk about science, can we please just stick to observation and avoid conjecture? Right now I am only aware of one planet that is suitable for known life where life exists. Therefore based upon observation our planet is the only one with the exact conditions required for known life. If you watch too many alien sci-fi movies you start letting them creep in and cloud your scientific reality.


No, it's the atmosphere that does the bulk of the job protecting us from cosmic radiation...

Not from all I have ever read about it.

The Earth's magnetic field serves to deflect most of the solar wind, whose charged particles would otherwise strip away the ozone layer that protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has varied wildly over the course of Earth's history, so this is plainly false.

Can you support this for me please?


https://www.reference.com/geography/land-water-ratio-earth-ab8815afa863586f

Wait, what? So mutations that add new, beneficial information to the genome are possible for single-celled organisms, but somehow prohibited for multi-celled ones? How?

Almost all single celled organisms have a special DNA called plasmids that is absent in almost all multi-celled organisms. Most changes observed in single celled organism were directly caused by changes in food sources rather than random mutations, and the changes occurred nearly always in the plasmid DNA. It is as if they were designed with the knowledge that they had no ability to migrate as multi-celled life can. Therefore we would have to have an example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial information (gene increasing) to the genome of a MULTI-celled organism, in order to demonstrate universal common decent was possible. I can’t stress the word “observed” here enough.

Also, we do see such mutations in multi-celled organisms.

Please cite an example?
 
Upvote 0

BradB

Newbie
Jan 14, 2013
491
124
✟37,216.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We are in general agreement. Although my understanding of atheists would be more complicated, because of the times. I definitely do not believe that atheists are not being sincere in what they claim to believe. But how much of this is complicated by living in a post Enlightenment world? How many atheists had to first think about God’s existence before they decided to reject it? And MOST people will never even study arguments for this in their lives.

You mentioned that faith is also a needed ingredient, how many people would choose theism instead if their earliest memories of pondering general revelation included at least a small ingredient of faith? And of course that’s way less likely to happen with atheist parents, which are everywhere today. How many chose theism, then later in life found out that they had been spoon fed ignorant intellectual reasons for it, so now their atheism also contains a ton of hostility towards theism that you would have to cut through?

I’m of the opinion that if the scriptures were written post Enlightenment some things would have been worded differently, maybe instead of ‘They are without excuse’ something like ‘They have been lead astray with crafty words.’ Arguing the general existence of God/Gods wasn’t the big issue when they were written. ‘Which God(s)’ was the major argument of those days.

Thanks for your comments. I can't speak for anyone else but myself of course. But I have heard many reports of people coming to faith in Christ who were raised in homes of other beliefs. I myself was raised as a child in a broken home by an alcoholic mother with no religious upbringing. I came to faith in Christ as a teenager and led my mother to Christ. Later in life I had backslid on God and she was instrumental in getting me back to my faith in Christ. I really believe truth will always out way "upbringing" every time to those who are willing to hear it. The point I hope to make here is that in this "age of scientific enlightenment" it is not required for us to check our brains at the door of the church with our hats and coats. There are reasonable scientific reasons to believe God exists and there is good logical evidence to suggest the Bible is the only book which can be divinely inspired. Therefore from its pages we learn that God does truly reward those who diligently seek Him by faith in His Son Jesus Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
82
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,445.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Sorry I don't follow you. I don't know what OP stands for.

OP = opening post

If one can believe in a supernatural entity that one cannot observe or measure and believe that this entity was uncreated and has existed forever, then why does the natural universe have to have a first cause? I see no logical basis for the first and not the second.

The singularity of the Big Bang Theory might be the instant of creation or it might have to do with the collapse of a previous universe resulting in the formation of a new one.

As a Christian I do not regard faith as an unquestioning belief in a set of propositions formed several thousand years ago. To me, faith is a trust in the ultimate goodness of God.

As a scientist I provisionally accept the findings of science knowing full well that a theory is as good as it gets and that at some future time new information might require the modification or outright rejection of a theory.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The scientific law of causality

There is no such scientific law.

There are literally hundreds of conditions like these all working together making life possible. We are told that they must exist at the exact parameters they exist at, at the exact locations they exist at, and even all at the same time in the universe just for life to even be possible.

The conditions found relative to our particular planet aren't that remarkable given the sheer size of the known universe. The universe is estimated to have billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars per galaxy. That some parts of the universe may have conditions suitable life seems less remarkable and more an inevitability.

Kind of like how winning the lottery for any individual is highly improbable, but if enough people play then at least someone is likely to win.

We would have to have at least one example of an observed random mutation adding new (gene increasing) and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism. Nothing of the sort has ever been observed.

We have examples of both mutations that can increase genetic content (e.g. gene duplications) and beneficial mutations. In fact I remember going over all of this in prior discussions with you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ubicaritas
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
QUOTE="BradB, post: 72930889, member: 322963"

( snip)
Almost all single celled organisms have a special DNA called plasmids that is absent in almost all multi-celled organisms. Most changes observed in single celled organism were directly caused by changes in food sources rather than random mutations, and the changes occurred nearly always in the plasmid DNA. It is as if they were designed with the knowledge that they had no ability to migrate as multi-celled life can. Therefore we would have to have an example of an observed random mutation adding new and beneficial information (gene increasing) to the genome of a MULTI-celled organism, in order to demonstrate universal common decent was possible. I can’t stress the word “observed” here enough.

This isn’t correct ,bacteria do have plasmids and they’re used to exchange of nuclear material with another bacterium. But Bacteria will pick up DNA from everything: Other bacteria, dead organisms and or waste . So they’re always dealing with mutations . If the mutation helps them survive they proliferate

“scientific facts must be observed “is a creationist myth as not all things scientific need to be directly observed . We can’t see the planet’s core yet because we know how the density of different materials effects sound waves , we know what it’s made of .

Type O blood . The most common mutation in humans . In response to a now extinct parasite . Remember that to increase information as in information theory as it applies to living organisms means that the organism survives better . It’s NOT a simple increase or decrease in the amount of DNA in a cell.

Since the so called gaps in the fossil record can be filled in with genetics there’s no reason to deny common descent . As an example, back in the 90s genetic tests on whale genomes stated that they were closely related to sheep. Nobody thought that was correct and then they started finding more fossils and to make a long story short ,yes , whales are Artiodactyla . You’ve got 1 the genes and 2 independent corroboration from the fossils . Most organisms and fossils are like this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0