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.
Here's the thing. Genetics (the study of and discoveries) can also be seen to be providing more and more evidence for Intelligent Design. This debate aint gonna end soon.The genetic record holds massive amounts of undeniable evidence of such.
DNA is inherited by off spring. That allows us to establish biological relationships in terms of family ties.
I understand why you put that into quotes, as if it is me saying it, but I did not say that.Secondly, your next few paragraphes seems to be a dishonest extrapolation of that, hinting towards "so therefor we could be wrong about literally everything and the world could be only 6000 years old after all".
Well, sorry, but no, we most definatly aren't wrong about everything.
After all, you are reading this message, aren't you?
Think of all the technology involved to getting my words on your screen.
Many of these technologies are literally based on the SAME theories that deal with the very data you are talking about here: determining ages by measuring isotopes / atomic decay. How that works is covered by atomic theory. The same theory that provides the necessary knowledge to be able to build things like microprocessors.
If it's all wrong: why does my PC boot? Why do nukes explode? Why do GPS systems pretty accuratly pinpoint my position?
See?
Actually, that's not quite true. Science is more like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle after you've lost the top of the box and aren't even sure all the pieces are there any more. As you work you will naturally begin to conjecture as to what the picture might be, based on what you have assembled so far. Sometimes you will be baffled, sometimes a single piece will change your theory radically. But after you get most of the pieces put together, you probably have a pretty good idea of what the picture is, even if you run out of pieces before you're quite finished.BTW "the overwhelming numbers of pages of evidence" I hear so much about are still nowhere equal to the task of proving the Darwinian theory of evolution works for even one species, nevermind all the species. The chain of evidence is not made by an occasional link, placed in its spot by human speculation.
Oh, good. I'm glad you weren't going there, then.The point is simply: why would you put yourself into a dogmatic faith based position where you are required to reject imperical evidence if it happens to contradict what you have decided to believe dogmatically on faith?
It's literally setting yourself up for having to stick your head in the sand at one point or another. Because yes, some of the stuff you believe at any point, is going to be wrong.
Especially those things you believe on faith.
And if your position right out the gates anyway, is that your god can do anything... then why not just let reality dictate how this god did what he supposedly did?
If all the evidence points to evolution, then why not just assume that god created things in such a way that humans would evolve eventually?
At least such a religious belief would force you to irrational beliefs about reality (irrational, being to hold beliefs that is actually contradicted by rational evidence...)
But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.Actually, that's not quite true. Science is more like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle after you've lost the top of the box and aren't even sure all the pieces are there any more. As you work you will naturally begin to conjecture as to what the picture might be, based on what you have assembled so far. Sometimes you will be baffled, sometimes a single piece will change your theory radically. But after you get most of the pieces put together, you probably have a pretty good idea of what the picture is, even if you run out of pieces before you're quite finished.
Now you're talking!But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.
But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.
No, we're farther along than that. But as Pitabread pointed out, even though we may not yet be entirely sure of what the picture is, we can tell in many cases what it is not. And one of the things it is not is biblical creationism.But if you so far have way too few pieces of this HUGE (admit it) jigsaw puzzle, you still don't know what the picture is.
It may even be possible the pieces we find aren't even pieces to the puzzle, or that there is no puzzle. Yet we have already named it and are saying we have enough pieces, and the rest are falling rapidly into place. But, yeah, it is good to be optimistic.
That's the nonsense about it. Mutations are defects. Even genealogists have said maybe 1/10,000 mutations could be beneficial to an organism. However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one. Chance would not have a chance. Chance btw, has no power, no knowledge, intelligence, direction ... chance is nothing. And to think the nature could select ... wait a minute, let's stop there. What is nature? Water, minerals, the sun, electromagnetic energy, etc. None of these has a mind nor collectively do they have intelligence to select anything. The organism itself (if it could possibly evolve) could not select it's own defects, log them and then pick and choose the good to pass them on to their offspring. Remember, mutations create distortions, weaknesses, deformities, not more complex or more advanced abilities or structures.Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **
But we kinda do know what the picture is. And more importantly, what it isn't.
UmmmNo, we're farther along than that. But as Pitabread pointed out, even though we may not yet be entirely sure of what the picture is, we can tell in many cases what it is not. And one of the things it is not is biblical creationism.
However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one.
That is a brutal misunderstanding of how it works. We even have evolution simulations. They work. Let me explain how it works, once again, if you have a detrimental mutation, you may die earlier, leading to you not breeding, and not passing on your genes. If you have a beneficial mutation, you will be more likely to breed and pass on your genes. Here is a link to an evolution simulator you can play with to see the evidence yourself of it working: Evolution Simulator [FIXED] - OpenProcessing.That's the nonsense about it. Mutations are defects. Even genealogists have said maybe 1/10,000 mutations could be beneficial to an organism. However, many mutations (defects0 are harmful to the organism or even deadly, that that this organism must go throw the 9,999 negative mutations (that would be futile and deadly) before it got a chance to use one good one. Chance would not have a chance. Chance btw, has no power, no knowledge, intelligence, direction ... chance is nothing. And to think the nature could select ... wait a minute, let's stop there. What is nature? Water, minerals, the sun, electromagnetic energy, etc. None of these has a mind nor collectively do they have intelligence to select anything. The organism itself (if it could possibly evolve) could not select it's own defects, log them and then pick and choose the good to pass them on to their offspring. Remember, mutations create distortions, weaknesses, deformities, not more complex or more advanced abilities or structures.
See how absurd it all sounds. It's a theory made by a bumbling fool who was not even aware of the complexities of a cell. Darwin thought a cells was a jelly-like substance, simple. No cell is simple. If you blew one up to 10mile radius, you would see thousands of intricately designed molecular machines and made up of 100 billion atoms. It is far more complicated than anything man has ever made and that's one cell. That does not even begin to discuss the complexities of organs within systems and all dependent on each other for life. Organs and systems can not be put together in a piece by piece order over millions of years. The eye for instance needs all it's components to function. All would have had to evolve simultaneously in one perfect moment for vision to work, be beneficial and then be passed down.
Besides that, there are no transitional forms, just imaginative hopeful candidates, illustrations that have be drawn to suggest how things evolved.
Your question is even flawed along with your theory. It should have been more specific, addressing only Macro-evolution, species turning into entirely different species. Micro-evolution is obvious, things change within the species. But these are adaptive mechanisms already programmed into the code. That's right programmed, by a Designer.
You wouldn't expect the iPhone in hands just appearing by chance, non-intelligent means over time???
Your theory is similar to an explosion happening in a print shop and the Encyclopedia Britannica appearing by chance as a result.
From slime to Marylyn Monroe -- all by chance, defects collected over time -- LOL.
How do you figure?
Plenty of info out there, I'm sure you can find them.
Evolution is misdirection, away from God, and is therefore a negative enterprise.
Why don't you investigate where the original information encoded in DNA & RNA came from and how they "evolve". Behe posit the idea of "irreducible complexity" start there. Then explain dissimilarity of codes if we originated from a common ancient single cell (already a leap to understand how non life became life). Then ask how much time you will need for "evolution" to bring that ancient single cell to become a chimpanzee.
micro evolution onlyEvolution is foundational to modern biology and an applied science.
micro evolution only
You're not seriously calling Macro Evolution, based largely on inconclusive assumptions and speculation, an applied science?Nope, I'm talking about the theory of evolution as a whole including common descent.
And yes, ancestral relationships between species has real world application (e.g. in modern genomics).
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?