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.
God uses the laws of physics to create. God showed me that the universe is expanding long before I learned that from Science. Most major denominations you have to have a degree in science first then you can go on to get a degree in theology.
The genetic information that determines the characteristics of an organism is stored in its DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA contains the instructions for the development, growth, and function of all living organisms, including horses, rabbits, amoebas, and bacteria.
True -- but rocks have never been observed to produce a living organism, or DNA
Interesting suggestion - where do you get the idea that DNA is record of history of anything?
Defects in DNA are certainly common and can be measured across lines of descent. But that does not give a history of life or evolution, it gives a partial record of the defects/mutations since many mutations are not viable.
No we don't. We don't share "eyes" with fish just because we both have eyes and we don't share our mouth with horses just because we both have mouths.
Nope -- we did not come from horses or fish - read Genesis 1 and 2 to see where we came from.
God invented the biosphere of Earth from scratch - read Genesis 1 and 2.
God said in the OT that He is unfolding/expanding the universe "as a curtain" expands. Which is a pretty good description of current observations.
Name those major denominations that do not allow degrees in theology to someone who does not first have a Bachelor of Science degree.
In the United States, the requirements for becoming a Methodist pastor may vary depending on the specific denomination or conference. However, generally speaking, a candidate for ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church is required to have a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution and complete a Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree or its equivalent at an accredited seminary or divinity school.
Overall, the main difference between a rock and fertile soil is the ability of the soil to provide a supportive environment for plant growth, while a rock does not have this capability.
DNA is the molecule that carries the genetic information that is passed from one generation to the next. This means that changes or variations in the DNA sequence can be inherited by offspring, providing a mechanism for evolution and the diversification of species over time.
We are more similar to them -- but are not descended from lower life forms as Genesis 1` and 2 point out.
neither one will produce a rabbit or a horse. That too is observable science.
defects can occur no doubt - mutations delete information over time... certainly.
recombination and loss of information via mutation, defects etc is observable.
Name those major denominations that do not allow degrees in theology to someone who does not first have a Bachelor of Science degree.
Neither of which is necessarily a degree in science.
My objection was to your statement that they had to have a degree in science to be a theologian. Your post just shows them having theology related degrees
You raised an interesting point: "the concept that God created everything means everything. That includes spacetime itself and everything in it." If you are taking this from Genesis1:1, it actually says that the elohim (gods - Hebrew male plural) created (bara) the skies (shamayim) and land (eretz). The word of interest is shamayim, which can also mean whatever one sees looking into the skies, including at night. The question I raise is: What is the scope of Gen. 1:1? In recent times, it has been assumed that it includes the modern cosmological model of the universe, but that is not what Gen. 1:1 says. I have been thinking about this. The Gen. 1 account includes sun, moon and "stars". Stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are any bright points of light in the sky and include not only the visible stars but also planets, asteroids, etc. that we make a distinction about. So, what I am raising is the question of the scope of creation. It might be that the creation of what we call the universe has yet to be revealed to us, that the creation account has not yet been completed.
God says the earth brought forth living things as He intended. I'll go with His opinion.
Genetics. We can, for example, trace the history of families, individuals, and even national groups thereby. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
Because you have no idea of what "information" is, you got it completely backwards. Every new mutation in a population increases information in it. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?
Recombination might or might not be an increase in information. Again, you don't have any idea of what "information" means, so you're just making it up as you go along.
No, that's not going to happen. You see, both wolves and dogs evolved from a canid ancestor that was neither a dog nor a modern wolf. That ancestor is gone and many of its genes are certainly gone forever.
While I agree with the comments of the Barbed Aryan, I would add about genetic ancestry tracing that it is a science in its infancy and is not clear-cut. There are errors or at least a low signal-to-noise ratio when taken back too far. We can know this because we have enough ancient history to know of the migration of people groups and they do not always match well (if at all) the haplotype distance indicators of genetic tracing. Until the genetic and archaeological histories converge, I will hold the genetic history more in doubt because of its brief history and ambiguities.God says the earth brought forth living things as He intended. I'll go with His opinion.
Genetics. We can, for example, trace the history of families, individuals, and even national groups thereby. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
Because you have no idea of what "information" is, you got it completely backwards. Every new mutation in a population increases information in it. Would you like to see the numbers for a simple case?
Recombination might or might not be an increase in information. Again, you don't have any idea of what "information" means, so you're just making it up as you go along.
No, that's not going to happen. You see, both wolves and dogs evolved from a canid ancestor that was neither a dog nor a modern wolf. That ancestor is gone and many of its genes are certainly gone forever.
Although researchers have successfully determined the time, location and ancestry of nearly every other domesticated species, from sheep to cattle to chickens to guinea pigs, they continue to debate these questions for our best friend, Canis familiaris. Scientists also know why humans developed these other domesticated animals—to have food close at hand—but they do not know what inspired us to allow a large, wild carnivore into the family homestead. Yet dogs were the first domesticated species, a status that makes the mystery of their origin that much more perplexing.
As inscrutable as the mystery is, scientists are piecing it together. In the past few years they have made several breakthroughs. They can now say with confidence that contrary to received wisdom, dogs are not descended from the gray wolf species that persists today across much of the Northern Hemisphere, from Alaska to Siberia to Saudi Arabia, but from an unknown and extinct wolf. They are also certain that this domestication event took place while humans were still hunter-gatherers and not after they became agriculturalists, as some investigators had proposed.
At what time and in what location wolves became dogs and whether it was only a one-time event are questions that a large research team, composed of once competing scientists, has just started to tackle. The researchers are visiting museums, universities and other institutions around the world to study collections of canine fossils and bones, and they are readying genetic samples from ancient and modern dogs and wolves for the most comprehensive comparison to date. When they are finished, they will be very close to knowing when and where—if not exactly how—wolves first began down the path toward becoming our trusted companions. Answers to these questions will complement the growing body of evidence for how humans and dogs influenced one another after that relationship was first forged.
How Wolf Became Dog
Scientists are racing to solve the enduring mystery of how a large, dangerous carnivore evolved into our best friendwww.scientificamerican.com
Notice that the history contained in canid DNA is what will tell us about the origins of dogs and how they evolved to what they are today.
Turns out, genes and culture aren't always the same things...
www.nature.com
I think you have it backwards. Genetic ancestry is on more solid ground that our knowledge of the migration of ancient peoples, at least for the last 20,000 years or so. Ancient DNA has revealed major population movements into and within Europe that we know little or nothing about from archeology.
ALL is a very powerful word in the Hebrew. People water it down when they use the word thing.
In his book: "Once a Wolf" Bryan Sykes says that his "narrative" is "embellished with a generous helping of my own imagination",
The Vikings were given Normandy if they converted to Christianity. They spread out from there when they were given land for fighting in the crusades'. Back then if you wanted farm land you had to fight for it.
