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.
A hypothesis is not a theory until it is repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon. There are theories that explain them.
You are probably unaware of the science of evolutionary development. Might be worth investigating. While common descent isn't actually part of evolutionary theory, it is understandable as a consequence of evolution.
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com
That is a pity. I was hoping we could get a little closer to understanding the relationship between the conscious mind and the self. I know you don't believe in the spiritual, but I was hoping some of my questions about what the conscious mind is would receive a new trail to finding the answers.
This isn't really the thread for that, but if MM was here he'd probably try to make it so.
Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation (or evolution of new taxa). That is also observed.
We also see macroevolution, the evolution of new species. Would you like some examples?
See above. You've confused common descent with macroevolution. Not the same thing. However, I gave you a great deal of evidence for the descent that went from fish to tetrapods to aminiotes, to mammals. (cats are mammals). You ignored it. So I'm thinking you don't want to see it.
That's easily testable. Which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory has been refuted? Be specific. It's not a rhetorical question; I'd like an answer.
People who say "it's only a theory" don't understand science. I don't think I've ever said "it's only a theory." Theories are well-tested and confirmed explanations for observed phenomena. You seem to have confused "hypothesis" and "theory."
For example, Huxley, based on anatomical features in crocodiles, predicted that bird descended from other dinosaurs. How could we test it? First, his prediction that there would be transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs has been repeatedly verified. At least some dinosaurs had feathers, and at least some of them had the so-called avian respiratory system, and much more. If you can name even one feature of birds that is not present in other dinosaurs, now would be the time for you to show us. What do you have?
People are often wildly mistaken about themselves, for a variety of reasons. When the choice is between believing someone's self-report, or believing the word of God the choice is obvious, even if the self-reporter is offended by the implication.
I would suspect as much.
I'm not concerned with the feelings or opinions of human beings, at least not when it brushes up against believing the word of God.
It certainly has some difficult areas, but once you accept an omnipotent God the more outlandish portions become far less difficult.
Someday I hope you realize how rude it is to apply your religious presuppositions to other people, but it is a thin hope and will not be waiting out your moral improvement.
The text provides more problems to one who thinks it was written/inspired by an omnipotent being than for those who don't.
And you are a moral authority because...?
I've never found it problematic, though I've never been one to take a verbal plenary view of inspiration all that seriously.
The process for myself with intelligent design is that after years of reflection than came total dismissal.
