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.
Would it feel better to say, we must PROFFER that is according to present knowledge?
The exact same type of relationship as the one that exists between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc etc etc.
‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level). However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.You can pretend that faith trumps reality all you want, but in the end, no matter how passionatly you believe something, reality always gets the last word.
If reality disagrees with your beliefs - it's not reality that is incorrect.
But we were talking about beginnings and biological evolution, not math and semiconductors.
There is a lot less we know, though what we do [supposedly] know is less [supposedly] theoretical and more directly evident about the evolution of the species. Just the bones we have extrapolated skeletons and related tissues from for the entire human story will barely fill a footlocker!
The honest scientist --anthropologist, geologist, archaeologist-- will say, this is what it looks like so far.
So far all we have is theory,
with some apparently supporting evidence."
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.
As for where you are going, then: If what I know about God is true (not referring to what I consider true, or hope is true, (both may tenets of the faith)), then all empirical FACT will support it. I do not by that mean that all empirical findings interpreted will support it. And that is the difference I think you and I talk about. You see these things as truth, and yes I do necessarily see the Self-existent Creator as truth. So yes, I agree, I do see everything biased, but then, admit (or proffer if you wish), so do you.
But even then, I have tried to show your argument falls on its own merits, ignoring even its false presuppositions.
But don't forget, there is no competing model. You may think that the theory of evolution has not been adequately substantiated, but it remains as the only model which hasn't already been falsified.‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level). However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.
‘Seeing and knowing’ there is a relationship between you and your biological siblings, cousins, 2nd cousins, parents, grandparents, etc. is one thing (on a micro level).
However, ‘not seeing and not knowing’, having only fragments of the puzzle, as you guys even attest to, no matter how tantalizing they can be as far as wanting to fit them in your model [they look similar, they act similar, this or that could have happened, they could have shed this and gained that because of x, the DNA is 90 something percent identical, so they must have changed from one kind to another kind eventually (macro level)] may be good science, but it doesn’t make it so, and it does not invalidate the Bible or Creation. And, even if you want to call it likely... it's still not reality, it's an assumption based only on what you believe from the little you know.
'Seeing and knowing' is the exact same thing as 'not seeing and not knowing,' now that makes a lot of sense.No, it's the exact same thing.
Step 2 out of your evolutionist's playbook (the one for your argument is failing). It's quite clear that you have been sold on the "it can only be this way"... just make relevant, intelligent comments, I'll acknowledge them with appropriate answers.It's quite clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and don't have any basic knowledge about genetics.
You seem completely unaware of what phylogenetic trees are, what nested hierarchies are and what that means in context of self-replicating organisms that pass on mutated DNA.
You mean no competing scientific model... don't forget this is a Creation/Evolution forum.But don't forget, there is no competing model.
Now, you have to be talking about the model as a whole, no matter the number of idividually falsified arguments within it, and yes, I'm sure it will be the scientific community's baby for quite some time to come.You may think that the theory of evolution has not been adequately substantiated, but it remains as the only model which hasn't already been falsified.
So what's your alternative? Last Thursdayism?You mean no competing scientific model... don't forget this is a Creation/Evolution forum.
There are, so far as I know, no individually falsified arguments within it. Can you show us some?Now, you have to be talking about the model as a whole, no matter the number of idividually falsified arguments within it, and yes, I'm sure it will be the scientific community's baby for quite some time to come.
What do you think evolution is? It's not generally developing into a totally different species. It's a species evolving.
a tipical gene is a bit longer then 1000 bp. the sequence space is about 4^1000. what make you think that all the functional sequences in nature are near each other in that huge sequence space?That is a brutal misunderstanding of how it works. We even have evolution simulations. They work.
And Special Creation is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an old Hebrew creation myth. Does that make it more likely to be true?but by this criteria even if all creatures were made by design in a special creation (without a common descent) evolution is still true even in such a case. because by this definition any change is evolution. im talking about common descent for all creatures. the evidence for this claim is base on belief.
If you want to call it that... I'll call it Creation.So what's your alternative? Last Thursdayism?
I'm sure the scientific community has verbiage, definitions and controls in place to protect the model from such strike-throughs, but I bet that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, regardless of how it was handled.There are, so far as I know, no individually falsified arguments within it. Can you show us some?
In other words, you have no actual criticism to make, no evidence to offer, and really nothing to contribute here.I'm sure the scientific community has verbiage, definitions and controls in place to protect the model from such strike-throughs, but I bet that doesn't mean it hasn't happened, regardless of how it was handled.
Well, that looks like two such opinions... but opinions vary you know.In other words, you have no actual criticism to make, no evidence to offer, and really nothing to contribute here.
No, I do not.
Unlike you, I haven't decided beforehand what the answer is. You did.
You have decided you have the answer (god dun it) before you even asked the question.
And when science asks the question and then gathers evidence, it forms a conclusion based on that evidence.
You? You started out with the conclusion.
And whenever science comes up with a different conclusion, you assume that the science is wrong - because for some reason you assume that you can't be wrong about your assumption.
I am not starting out with a conclusion in mind.
I just go where the evidence leads.
The evidence leads to evolution and common ancestry on an old earth.
It didn't have to be that way. I didn't "want" it to be that way. It's just how it happens to be. And I can only accept that.
You can't. You need reality to comply to your a priori beliefs, as per your own admission.
Actually, given the many things we observe like ERVs, pseudogenes, etc. falsify ID.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.
That is a falsehood.micro evolution only
Using magic words to try and poof away the evidence in a puff of smoke neither addresses it nor makes it go away.You're not seriously calling Macro Evolution, based largely on inconclusive assumptions and speculation, an applied science?
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?