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.
Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.
Hence the title of the book 'In Six Days', most of the authors are creationist believing Christian scientists.
Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.
I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact
or that there is science prooving no God
Also, I asked you for arguments FOR creationism. You've answered with arguments AGAINST evolution. Even if you did disprove evolution (which these arguments fail to do as they are not arguing against evolution but something different that nobody believes) that still wouldn't support creationism.
I have no problems with Micro evolution and I know of no one that does. Its very simple we can see this in Darwin's finches or in dogs. Of course life evolves on a micro adapting level. This is self evidenced and can be proven.
Macro evolution is something very different. There are tons of problems as I'm sure you are aware of but just in short I would go with this:
GRN's not synching to the reality of transition methodology.
DNA would need new information.
New body plans.
The problem of having to go backwards at times to go forwards in biological efficiency. If you have to backwards to go forward this would indicate design.
The Math problems starting with a single protein fold is enourmous but it get far worse on every level above that and there are too many levels above that for example the GRN's and then we go beyone the GRN's in our current models and understanding to incorporate the epigenetic information.
Just like before we have a serious problem do I need to spell out the math or the history?
So now what everything is going against this idea of no design. The Scientists are trying to figure it out. What do you do when nothing lines up with your belief system?
You argue.
you debate.
You look for other possabilities.
What do you think they are doing right now?
They are argueing.
They are debating.
They have problems.
We have not gone into the serious stuff
I want to go into the serious stuff.
We have not gone into the math or the science yet.
But that is the fun part.
But I have other things ... so maybe later . ... but that's the fun part .
I love it because it is so clear. Its not like the science or the math is both or every way ... umm no its just one way.
All roads lead to a creator ... I'm sorry I know that is not sexy or something but that is how it works.
The fact is that science is on the side of God or on a creator.
Science was never on the side of evolution lol.
Honestly its bad on the evolution side ... its really bad.
And I hate that part because I spend so many hundreds of hours on the side of evolution and to have to turn away from it is not something I like.
Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.
It is very very difficult to prove creationism, maybe even impossible, not least because you practically have to prove that God exists!
Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.
Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions that end up at a wild amount of deadends.
Atheism includes exactly zero presuppositions. It is a lack of belief in a single claim.
I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.
Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.
I doubt scientists say evolution is a fact. It is a theory, close to fact (they say).evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.
Same thing, different wording.No it is not. Science is based on the idea that miracles are not something addressed by science.
Science is based on the idea that God does not interfere with the natural world, and as a result the physical aspects of matter can be counted on not to change due to supernatural influence.
No, that's not the case. Science is based on the assumption that there are observable patterns of behaviour in nature, and we may be able to explain how they're causally related.Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist and never happen.
Evolution (the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations) is a fact, it has been observed many times in many different circumstances.I doubt scientists say evolution is a fact. It is a theory, close to fact (they say).
I've never seen a clear qualitative difference between the mechanisms of micro and macro evolution.
Now I don't have a professional biological background, so I'll leave the specifics of gene regulatory networks to an expert. (maybe @sfs has time to engage).
.
If only Creationists could understand and accept this point, then around 99.5% of arguments on evolution versus creation could be eliminated. Of course, then I would have to take up lawn bowls to pass the time.I'd love to see actual scientific reasons to believe, not just a false dichotomy about creation being true because evolution is false.
In addition, we have macro evolution and the common ancestry which obviously are difficult to observe directly, but are very well evidenced in fossils and the genetic make up of living and slightly less recent extinct species.
QUOTE]
Actually you would be surprised to realise how little evidence there actually is. I don't remember any fossils in precrambrian era that are related to the Phyum we see in the Cambrian explosion. There is a time problem that is critical and then there is the fact that the genetic research is not lining up with the supposed tree of life at all. In fact we have many tree's of life that conflict. One scientist exclaimed that we have just annihilated the tree of life. Some are beginning to wonder about common descent. The molecular clock data for finding the Deep Divergence is off by billions of years one study caim to the conclusion that they were 95% certain of Deep Divergence at 13.5 billion years ago. That would be interesting since there would not have been a planet around at that time.
I was in a debate with one scientist not that long ago and he brought up the GULO gene that is found in Chimps and humans and is broken in the same place. To have this gene develop randomly from two different species and be broken in the same place would be pretty ridiculous. In his words if this God then God is punking us on a universal level. He didn't know what to say when I told him that same gene is found in Rats, Bats, Birds, Guinea Pigs. Let me ask you how is it possible to have this gene in these different unrelated animals? The timeline doesn't match the genetic evidence doesn't match. The morphological distance from these different species and yet they have some of the same building blocks. Like a common designer was being efficient.
Life as you know it is not possible without a designer.
Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.
Actually I believe the evidence goes the other way to a point of beyond ... "beyond reasonable doubt". And I do not have to show you picture of God or something silly like that. I simply have to show that the universe the way it now could not happen with out an outside intelligent agent. That's easy.Who claims that there is science 'proving no God'. There is science that indicates that there is no God who did or doees X and Y if we can show that X and Y didn't/don't happen or that they happen/happened for other reasons.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?