Edison Trent
Active Member
- Nov 3, 2017
- 155
- 15
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Hmm in what creates earth dirt is quite interesting, all those things that create actual dirt of the earth.
Upvote
0
The Lie of Evolution
- Thread starter One Of The Elect
- Start date
NobleMouse
We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
- Sep 19, 2017
- 662
- 230
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
stevevw
inquisitive
I have considered most theories and especially the main ones like OEC, YEC, intelligent design, creationism, theistic evolution and Neo Darwinism. Like I say I cannot say which is the most truthful account of how things came into being and how life continually changes. Of course, I believe that God is behind what we see but this is based on my faith and cannot be entirely supported through scientific verification because these are two different views of life and Gods creative abilities are unseen. Therefore I tend to lean towards design or intelligence in life and there is some indirect evidence for this especially if you consider how all life appears to have a common design, natural laws and codes which direct it. But also think that life is open to circumstance and a degree of randomness but that randomness is a consequence of an existence that is more directed by God.
I think the scientific method has a materialistic worldview which will influence the way they see how life comes about. That materialistic view has been shown to be limited when it comes to the big questions about life (where do we come from, is there life after death and the meaning of life). The ironic thing is the scientific ideas that have attempted to address the big questions have been appealing more and more to ideas that step outside the way we normally measure things into more or less unlimited possibilities to help explain what is going on because the long-held scientific method is insufficient to account for what is being seen ie the creative power of natural selection, dark energy and matter, black holes, some ideas of quantum physics (the observer effect, Schrodinger's cat, spooky action etc), multiverses, and even gravity itself.
I think whether a person supports YEC, OEC, or theistic evolution they are still saying that God is the important factor for how existence and life came about and continues to change and IMO this is the most important thing. I don't think a person is going to lose salvation because they got Gods creation method wrong. Whether God created things as they are or from some original form that has changed since then, either way, it cannot occur without Gods creative influence. What Darwinian evolution does is make a materialistic idea for how life stemmed from that original life form and changes. But as time has gone by and we have discovered more and more complexity and common abilities and codes in life evolution have had to adapt its explanation to account for this and therefore natural selection has been given more and more creative power without the scientific support.
I think if you ask most people what is the power of evolution they would say natural selection. Some credit it with everything from the evolution of social, psychological and emotional attributes to how life first formed and every complex feature and creature we see. This has been shown to be wrong more and more because it takes a narrow view of life and because at the time Darwin was making his theory he did not know a lot of what we know now from various areas such as developmental biology, epigenetics, genomics, and social sciences. So in that sense evolution (natural selection) is insufficient to explain all we see, it still plays a role but will be shown to be wrong in what it claims about its creative power as time goes by.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JDD_III
Active Member
- May 29, 2017
- 60
- 27
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Evidence that must be interpreted in the light of naturalism. By definition. Something you choose to ignore. I have yet to see a scientific piece of evidence for evolution that cannot also be explained satisfactorily by Creation. Other scientists are in plenty who reject mainstream evolution - it is not a settled science.
You are not in a scientific forum. You are in a Christian one although you could have fooled me. I am not arguing from a scientific point of view, I am arguing from a theological one. Your man-centric science has no place in Christian theology.
I will take the foolishness of God over the greatest wisdom of man every day, thank you very much.
Upvote
0
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,728
- 7,756
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Endogenous retroviral (ERV) insertion points fall into a nested hierarchy. Why?
ERV insertions that are shared among many species show more genetic variation between viral family members than ERV insertions that are shared among few species. Why?
The transition-transversion ratio in human genetic variation is virtually identical to the transition-transversion ratio when comparing human and chimpanzee DNA. Why?
Sure, if by "in plenty" you mean a vanishingly small fraction. The great majority of Christian biologists accept evolution.
The basic fact of evolution -- common descent -- has been settled science for well over a century. The hundreds of thousands of biologists working around the world, who are working on thousands of research projects and generating hundreds of thousands of articles in the scientific literature, spend none of that time and effort on evaluating whether evolution is true or not.
Have you ever talked to a working biologist?
Upvote
0
JDD_III
Active Member
- May 29, 2017
- 60
- 27
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Two potential reasons could explain this (although I not saying it is limited to only these 2):
1) Insertion is not random and is sequence-biased
2) These sequences did not originate from a retrovirus
See first answer.
Because the sequences are more similar? Because the CpG content is similar?
It depends again on how you define evolution. There are a number of scientists – and it is growing – who reject neo-Darwinian evolution and universal common descent (UCD) as having the explanatory power for current observations on life and origins.
You are correct to say that most modern day scientists accept evolution and UCD though. But this is because that is how science works: if you are an expert in immunology, you will read and rely on other experts in developmental biology (peer-review publications), as an example, and generally take their word for how developmental biology works as they are the “experts”. Dogma is established by a few in science, hence why the famous quote “Science advances one funeral at a time.” I encourage anyone who wants to observe a good example of this, which is not based on evolution, to read “Emperor of Scent” by Chandler Burr. You have there a scientist trying to overturn a few decades of dogma in how we smell, with very good evidence yet due to the peer-review process has to publish in some theoretical science journal. The challenges to established evolutionary processes are even harder to publish in any sort of respected journal.
And besides, what alternative is there from a scientific point of view? If science were to reject UCD and evolution, what is it left with? De facto, it has no option, for a bad theory is better than no theory at all.
I am interested to know:
1. Why does that matter/What would that change?
2. What do you think a “working biologist” could offer me that I do not have regarding this issue?
3. How would this help me, personally?
Upvote
0
Edison Trent
Active Member
- Nov 3, 2017
- 155
- 15
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Yup just like today God hasn't changed the way He creates.
Dirt is created from the decaying of trees, leaves, grass, animals, water running over rocks etc. by His design.
Upvote
0
Other scientists who reject mainstream evolution are rare. Plenty of scientific pieces of evidence have been supplied that only evolution can explain satisfactorily.
It shows a lack of faith to believe one must disconnect one's religion from the findings of investigation of reality. Some religious ideas are false, and sometimes science can bring the evidence that matters for a particular idea to our attention. I believe the ultimate truths about God will be found to be compatible with the ultimate truths about the universe. If our human ideas about God have to suffer along the way, perhaps that isn't such a great loss.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
sfs
Senior Member
- Jun 30, 2003
- 10,728
- 7,756
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Insertion is known to be biased by sequence, but not determined by it. There are still an enormous number of possible insertion points, and yet the ones we see fall into a nested hierarchy.
Then you have to explain why they look exactly like they originate from a virus, including (in some cases) have genes for viral proteins, and have even been shown to be able to recreate a virus.
Your first answer says nothing to explain this fact.
How does either one explain the transition-transversion being the same? This is about differences, not similarities. Why do the genetic differences between humans look like the genetic differences between humans and chimps, except for there being more of the latter?
So far, you have failed to provide a creationist explanation for any of the items I asked about.
Virtually all evolutionary biologist reject strict neo-Darwinism. Some of them propose to replace a single last universal common ancestor with an interlinked community that evolved as a group. None of them reject the basic fact of common descent. That is indeed settled science.
It might prevent you from giving the impression that the basic fact of evolution is not settled science. Because that's wrong, and working biologists know it's wrong.
A working knowledge of biology.
I don't know whether it would or not. Do you care whether you speak the truth? If so, you're probably well advised to talk to working biologists about what biologists think.
Upvote
0
JDD_III
Active Member
- May 29, 2017
- 60
- 27
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
And there is still an enormous amount we do not understand about these sequences and their “insertion”. There is evidence for the majority of these being functionally transcribed. What evolutionists wilfully forget to acknowledge that homology is not stronger evidence for common descent. It is equally evidence for common design as you would expect a common designer to use common design plans. And guess what? Chimps look more like humans than a cow does. If we were designed, why would we expect us to not have similar sequences? ERVs are just another piece of “homology = common descent” which is a fallacy.
Because according to the Biblical literal paradigm, it is perfectly logical to assume humans pre-dated viruses. You said it yourself these sequences can recreate a virus. Where might viruses originated from? (as per Peer Torberg’s proposal of “The ‘VIGE-first hypothesis’”)
I fail to see how this supports descent from chimps. Similar sequences are more likely to mutate in a similar way….unless you presume ALL mutations are always purely random…rather than self-directed….as one example.
So far you have failed to provide an argument that has not adequately been rebutted by many people studying this in far more detail than myself that overwhelmingly supports common descent across kinds. You just choose to not accept other proposals. Most, far better than the simple time-constrained responses I have provided. I would link to various sites but my experience in doing that is people focus on the source rather than the science (which is a type of ad hominem and bad science). They expect the rebuttals to fall in peer-reviewed science when they fail to acknowledge that that is like asking a Muslim to review a publication by a Buddhist as to why Buddhism is a superior religion to all others and expecting them to say it should be published. I know how the peer-review system works. I have been victim of it with good science myself, blocked by reviewers with competing interests, let alone someone who completely holds a different world view. Just look at the reaction of the hard core evolutionists to the ENCODE results – they outright reject them not because of the science per se, but because it flies in the face of evolution. So rather than “transcription might mean function” it is “transcriptional activity cannot mean function as there is no way 80% of the genome can be functional and our models of evolution also be true.”
Yes, humans produce variants of humans. So do birds. So to non-human primates. Primates do not produce humans – that is not settled science in terms of actual real testable evidence.
No, I am pretty sure it would not.
I hold a Master’s degree from a prestigious university in Biochemistry.
I hold a PhD from a prestigious university in Cell Biology.
I have a number of year’s post-doctoral experience.
I have published a number of peer-reviewed publications in high impact journals.
I head a department of > 50 individuals in cutting edge biological science.
So? Do I still need to talk to a “working biologist”?
I do not say any of this to “brag” or say my opinion is more worthwhile than another. But you assume I am unqualified to speak. Much like those whom Paul was talking to when he listed off his credentials for being the “stock of Jews” to.
By the world’s standard I am a success in science. Sure, I’m not an evolutionary biologist and have no interest in being one. But I am still from the outside considered a success, by the world’s standards.
But I consider all of the above and any “success” as skubalon, compared to the wonders of God’s Word. It is nothing, it is of no gain. God doesn’t “respect” that. So why do Christians?
Science starts from the a priori point of everything has a naturalistic explanation. Therefore, if God is the Creator, science will always come to the wrong conclusion, because de facto it seeks out the answers that the Bible tells us are God.
In the beginning was the Word…all things were created by Him and for Him.
He was there in the beginning.
How did Jesus treat the Word of God? He relied on the tense of a verb to make His point. Think about that, let it settle in. He relied on the TENSE OF A VERB to make a sweeping doctrinal statement.
If that is how Jesus, the living God viewed the Scriptures, that is good enough for me and superseded anything science can say.
This is the Jesus who created out of nothing whilst He walked the earth. He made the lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear. He raised the dead from the grave, He changed weather patterns, He walked on water. He made a shrivelled arm normal. These are creative, events, ex nihilo. Not small changes over time – instant, creation-from-nothing events. That is the testimony of God’s Word. And here we are in a Christian forum, using man’s word and interpretation as superseding God’s revealed Word. He was there in the beginning, we can only guess what that looks like, and rely on what He said. Could science tell us anything about those creative events/miracles Jesus performed? Not. One. Thing. In fact, scientific analysis of those events post the event would only lead to the conclusion no ex nihilo creative event occurred. Why then, do we expect the world around us to “obviously look created” when it was a giant ex nihilo miracle?
I do not reject CD due to scientific reasons, I reject purely on theological grounds and my faith makes me supremely comfortable with that from any man-centric scientific finding tells me. Man, who is blinded by the god of this age. Man who has wilfully chosen to forget God judged the world with water and will judge with fire. Man who has rejected the Creator and worshipped the creation. Man who was made in the image of God, from the beginning.
Man who should not live on bread alone but on every Word that proceeds from the mouth of the living God.
I think I have that.
Now let me ask you a question. Have you ever spoken to a proper theologian, who is a true Bible-believing Christian and an expert in hermeneutics? Someone who understands and has a working knowledge of Greek and possibly Hebrew? Has devoted every day of their working life to this pursuit and study? Not just a pastor – that is like asking a high-school teacher of Biology to give me a working knowledge of Biology. I am talking about a real, Christian, Bible believing theologian and scholar. My experience is those sorts of people cannot escape the fact that either you accept the Bible as God’s Word and therefore CD and macro-evolution does not fit in that paradigm, or you must reject the Bible as the inspired Word of God.
Upvote
0
No there's not. Its random for what section of the chromosome is exposed enough get the insertions.
over millions of years evolution will of course coopt some of that junk dna into useful stuff.
So tell me, again, exactly why we share the common design of mammalian ear wiggling muscles and cannot use them. Tell me why we share the common design of muscle and nerve to lift our little toe and cannot use it.
Griping about regular science is what challengers of science always do. It is irrelevant. Bring evidence.
Yes it is, only you reject it as above. For example nested hierarchy of retroviral inserts is evidence. So you reject it, of course.
God's world is just as wonderful in the eyes of us Christians who accept evolution.
Since the natural world is made by God, all natural things that result from the natural world are also from God and its wrong to say they are not.
Jesus used his actual knowledge of things to inform his biblical interpretations and we can do that as well.
The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork, and you should stop trying to keep them quiet.
Well, we kind of knew that all along.
We should not ignore the direct Word of God written in the Stars, the Rocks and the Genomes.
So your view of interpreting the Bible is that its OK for your interpretation to reign supreme even if it is out of touch with reality, a step I am not willing to take with you. Millions of us are able to interpret the Bible as God's word and still have it be consistent with reality.
Upvote
0
JDD_III
Active Member
- May 29, 2017
- 60
- 27
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
There is one way to shut down an argument. Noted.
Take as one example, recent finding of “retroviral” genetic material in development:
Dynamic Transcription of Distinct Classes of Endogenous Retroviral Elements Marks Specific Populations of Early Human Embryonic Cells - ScienceDirect
Highlights
• ERV elements are systematically transcribed in preimplantation embryos
• Specific ERV families characterize the different developmental stages
• Long terminal repeats regulate and initiate stage-specific transcription
• Preserved splice sites link stage-specific ERVs to the non-repetitive transcriptome
This is just one paper. There are many and more emerging by the week on ERV and related function. (by the way – I post this not for your benefit – I know you are immovable on this. I post it for the 100 other people who will read this and want an engaging answer beyond “no you’re wrong”)
Ad hoc. Please provide me with convincing evidence that function was not there first. Given that in many cases we observe function. It is a pure ad hoc argument that whatever the observation, evolution wins. No function? Of course! Evolutiondidit. Function? Of course! Evolutiondidit.
You can find this answer….in your Bible. Loss of an ability is a Biblical feature. Genetic entropy is a Biblical prediction. Ironic how the eye can independently evolve 10’s of times, yet somehow evolution cannot keep the function of wiggling an ear with existing muscles. Why is this so difficult to see? Why does evolution explain this MORE than fallen humanity as per the Biblical literal translation?
Just living up to your approach, my brother!
“No there’s not”
By the way, I am a scientist – am allowed to gripe about the perils of the scientific system, as I have/do live it.
Functional genetic components that look like retroviral sequences is evidence of common design. You just choose to reject this as evidence. It does not mean it is not evidence.
Glad to hear it! It is a shame that blind luck and chance has the same explanatory power as an all-powerful God though in your eyes.
How do you know it was made by God? I thought science told us that there was a big bang, that there is a multiverse, that gravity and black holes are how we know the universe can spontaneously arise from nothing, and string theory is a better explanation than God? Where do you draw your line at rejecting mainstream science?
So let me follow your logic – God made evil?
[QUOTE[Jesus used his actual knowledge of things to inform his biblical interpretations and we can do that as well.[/QUOTE]
This is a theologically weak response. Jesus on numerous occasions deferred to the written Scriptures. I say it again – He placed weight on the tense of a verb to make a doctrinal statement.
“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!” - God
It is not my interpretation, it is the plain reading of Scripture. I have no desire for my own fallen mind to concoct any narrative that will be untrue. I only have the desire to rely on the Word of God and Heaven and Earth shall pass but the Word of the Lord will be for everlasting. So yes, I take more weight on the Word of God than anything else, because everything else will pass away.
You are imposing your interpretation to fit man-centric views. You have to reinterpret verses like:
“Death entered the world through the sin of one man.”
“But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE”
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy”
You call me out as imposing MY interpretation but in that vein you are guilty of making your interpretation reign supreme, on the everlasting Word of the Lord.
I am happy to agree to disagree on this, but the things you accuse a fellow brother in Christ of make me question the validity of your argument purely on that assessment. Without even the faintest hint of humility. If this is what it takes to be a theistic evolutionist (and I see this behaviour plenty from that camp), that alone is enough to make me dismiss it. If this really is “truth”, it is rarely spoken in love.
Upvote
0
So simply disagreeing with you is the sin of "shutting down and argument". I'm sorry, I will continue to expose error.
I've already expressed the idea that over millions of years evolution would naturally coopt some of the junk DNA present, including ERV's, for functional purposes.
Well of course you will never be convinced, we all know that, no matter what the evidence. But of course, there is evidence. For example, in evolution theory, the more time that went past since a last common ancestor, the longer the shared ERV's would have been in the genome. They should, therefore, be the more degraded, if more distantly related. More time, you see, for those mutations to arrive. Sure enough, that turns out to be the case.
I'll just take a moment here to point out the Bible never says anything, anywhere, about genes degrading. The idea of genetic degradation since Adam is a wholly invented YEC idea, a speculation they have enshrined as if it were a fact.
Ear wiggling in humans would be a step backwards. We higher primates have evolved a method of pinpointing sound direction that depends on phase analysis of incoming sound waves, allowing you to instantly know which direction a sound is coming from without waiting to turn your head or turn your ears. The ears evolved to be stationary to make this work better. Ear wiggling muscles don't cause any harm, so they are merely atrophied rather than eliminated by evolution.
It all depends on what you count as "explain". You can "explain" anything away by saying that God just made it that way. But it sure makes for attributing some strange thought processes to the Creator that way. Look at those scraps of leg/hip bones left over in whales, for example. Look at the poor giraffe, stuck with the same recurrent laryngeal nerve going down to the heart we have, but going down that great, long, neck, seriously slowing down its ability to work a vocal cord.
Then you know that evolution has been attacked since it was first proposed, and you know those attacks have never hit home.
Well, lets not call it "blind" luck. Lets give God credit for the physical laws that allow evolution to take place.
Sorry, science does not reject God, science merely admits it cannot deal with God by the rules of science and so God is not a topic of science. Oh, you can find atheistic scientists, of course, but that shouldn't count.
That taunt is one your own faith is not immune to any more than mine.
We all are stuck with our own interpretations of scripture. Your interpretation has the defect of driving away people who are are aware of the truth of evolution and the great age of the earth and is therefore unfortunate. I know you are trying to do the right thing, as am I.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Scientists can only do what they can, under limitations which they can't go beyond. It by no means says that they can be right when things have gone beyond that limitation.
The definition of science has been rewritten in order to accommodate the incompatible evolution, this re-definition may serve as a deception to everyone if you choose to ignore what the nature of science is. Basically the new definition sounds as if science is all about evidence while it is not.
======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.
If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.
This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.
That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.
An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!
The definition of science has been rewritten in order to accommodate the incompatible evolution, this re-definition may serve as a deception to everyone if you choose to ignore what the nature of science is. Basically the new definition sounds as if science is all about evidence while it is not.
======
Science is about the prediction of an end-to-end repetition. Science is accurate because it's always about something which can repeat infinitive number of times for humans to observe and most importantly to predict how it repeats to draw a conclusion. The methodology ToE employed is completely different from any other science. This is so simply because it takes millions of years for an end-to-end evolution to possibly repeat itself. We don't have that time to observe and predict how it repeats to draw any scientific conclusion.
If you implicitly claim that a human can be evolved from in the end a single cell organism, then you have to make the single-cell to human process repeats itself infinitive number of times for humans to do enough observations, and most importantly predictions on how this repeats in order to draw a scientific conclusion. That's how each and every single science works.
This is so because humans are creatures of the present. We don't have the capability to reach the past, and we don't have the capability to reach the future. It is because we have no capability to reach the future that if we can correctly and repeatedly predict how a phenomenon repeats itself into the future, we know that we hit a truth in terms of how we make use of a "theory" to predict the repetition. This is the nature of science and why it is accurate. In a nutshell, science is the making use of predictions repeatedly to identify a truth (which can repeat). ToE is a valid hypothesis in suggesting that evolution (from single cell to fully grown) can be a repeating process (of natural selection). However it's not up to the scientific accuracy as long as you can't make it repeat itself (to the extent of infinitive number of times) for the prediction of its repetition to be made correctly and repeatedly.
That said, to me the theory of common ancestry is a joke in concluding that everyone has an invisible common ancestor without knowing who it is. In terms of how things work, the genes are so if you would like that animal to have its appearance and behavior. If you want a chimp to have its current appearance and behavior, you need the genes to be so disregarding whether the genes share anything in common with that of humans. Everything else can be anything, not necessarily be a result of evolution. It can be a result of interbreeding or a mixture of interbreeding and adaptation. The difference between adaption and evolution is that species can be selected by the nature, however this may not be the way how they are brought to their current state from a single cell.
An analogy is that whenever you see someone in uniform sitting in the cockpit of a plane, you draw the conclusion that he's a pilot. This can be true however it's a pure speculation. He's a pilot when he launches and lands a plane from one airport to another repeatedly as we predict. Then he's a pilot. This what science is and how it makes a difference from the pure speculation. Similarly, when you see how nature changes a species to draw the conclusion that nature can drive a single cell to that species, it's a pure speculation. If you can predict repeatedly how a single cell turns into that species without error, only then you have a science!
Upvote
0
By your view astronomy isn't a science, because we can't make stars and study them in the laboratory. Science is not limited to things we can get our hands on. Science can be applied to anything we can gather evidence about and hypothesize about and test with more evidence. That includes history and that includes evolution and that includes the earth's past. Your desire to eliminate sciences that contradict your religion are going to be ignored.
Upvote
0
NobleMouse
We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
- Sep 19, 2017
- 662
- 230
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I agree. I would also add that staying away from astronomy would probably be profitable to those looking for 'evidence' to prove an old universe as astronomy is highly theoretical given that so little has and can be directly observed. As to evolution (the topic), nobody, ever, has observed one kind becoming a new kind. It has been enumerated multiple times on this thread the topic of transitional fossils. Exactly how many alleged transitional fossils have been found relative to the entire library of the known-to-date fossil record. If we assume all life arose from a common molecular life form, seems that we should almost exclusively be finding (statistically speaking) transitional fossils in the fossil record... with the very rare case being fossils that happen appear stagnant - which is the opposite of what is actually seen. Instead, we see dinosaurs that look like dinosaurs, fish that look like fish, birds that look like birds, etc... all perfectly in alignment with God creating animals after their own kind and then commanding them to be fruitful and multiply. Where's the repetition of transitional fossils continually being found? Nowhere.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, science doesn't work that way. For example, fossil can be anything like I said. It can be a result of repeated interbreeding. It can also be that nature does have the ability to select, such that a species can change along with time, however this may not be how they are brought to its current state from a single cell organism. It thus remains a speculation (i.e., not science) to conclude that nature can drive single cell organism to a fully grown species.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
