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.
It is NOT incorrect. You are compounding your errors and distortions.Which again is an incorrect statement.
It is NOT incorrect. You are compounding your errors and distortions.
From Wikipedia:
Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
That's not quite how it works.
Scientists started by observing the fact that populations of organisms change over time (e.g. the process of evolution). If modern species were the result of an accumulation of changes over time, then there are expected patterns of what we would observe in nature based on the understanding of how the process of evolution and common ancestry works.
The patterns that are observed in fossils, genetics, developmental biology, biogeography, etc, can either confirm or refute those expectations. In the case of organisms having come about by evolution, the observed patterns confirm those expectations. Hence, it's a conclusion that life shares common ancestry based on what is observed in nature.
This is a common straw man misrepresentation of evolution. If the first of those examples was possible, it would falsify evolution - dog and cat evolution can only extend their own respective lineages. For the second, birds are the descendants of avian therapod dinosaurs, so they are already part of the dinosaur lineage.
That's the thing. For those without your "worldview" the theory of evolution is plausible, makes useful predictions, has practical applications and although the evidence is incomplete, there is none which contradicts it. In short, it stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory so there s no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.Hi pitabread,
Thanks for your response. I'm sure this is going to get pretty difficult if we continue, but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what those patterns that have been observed are. If you would be able to just post back the names of the processes, I'd do some investigating on my own.
I did find this:
Evidence for evolution comes from many different areas of biology:
Do we have any way of really proving that two different creatures share a common ancestor. It can't just be that of the thousands of living creatures that God made, He didn't create any that are very, very closely alike but have never shared any historical ancestor?
- Anatomy. Species may share similar physical features because the feature was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Here again, the assumption seems to be that because two creatures share some DNA traits, then they must have common ancestry. Can we prove that? Have we found the creature from which both of the studied creatures shared? Is there really any scientific evidence that two creatures with similar DNA traits have to have a common ancestor.
- Molecular biology. DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Again, how do you prove that? Let's take some island creature and you tell me what it evolved from.
- Biogeography. The global distribution of organisms and the unique features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
We actually have some extinction going on today, do we have the animals that they have evolved into?
- Fossils. Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that are related to present-day species.
I think we can certainly see some adaptation and probably some micro-evolutionary characteristics, but it's a big step to get from a snail to a whale.
- Direct observation. We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
Of course, one of the greatest problems for me, is that evolution, as explained in the scientific model takes millions and billions of years. The Scriptures don't seem to allow that the planet has existed for that length of time. So, I will agree that my worldview likely has a lot to do with how I see the issue, but I have yet to really see any hard evidence that absolutely refutes the truth of my worldview.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.
That's the thing. For those without your "worldview" the theory of evolution is plausible, makes useful predictions, has practical applications and although the evidence is incomplete, there is none which contradicts it. In short, it stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory so there s no reason not to accept it--provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted.
We have microwave ovens because of proven scientific methodology. We have a lot of things today that have been created through the use of proven scientific methodology and I have no problem with science as a field of study and I do absolutely agree that it does give us knowledge of a lot of things in the world around us. However, there is a difference to me, of what is 'proven' scientific principles that lead to an increase in our knowledge of things vs. possible theories that might explain some phenomenon, but haven't actually been proven to be the answer to that phenomenon.
The modern theory of evolution is an applied science. Companies even file patents based on applications derived from the theory of evolution.
If the above is your benchmark for "proven scientific methodology" then the modern theory of evolution more than qualifies.
Yes, there is a chart in my sons school room that shows the suspected evolutionary chain. Down at the bottom, in fairly small print, it reads: patent applied for.
Maybe you have some other patent applications you could share with us that are based on these 'applications derived from the theory of evolution'.
As I suspect you know, he is engaging in a little rhetorical game. Hoping to smear evolution supporters with the stench of those who would countenance killing the unborn. Abortion, yay or nay, is an entirely disconnected issue.What makes you think they are all atheists?
But the Scriptures are not scientific evidence. That's not a denigration of Scripture, it's a matter of definition. Genesis is a book. As such it is no more evidence of creation than Origin of Species is evidence of evolution.Hi speedwell,
I absolutely 100% agree with your statement here also. For those without my worldview, the theory of evolution is plausible.
But that's as far as my agreement goes because there is contradictory evidence: the Scriptures.
Yet we are a good deal of the way. Evolution proceeds by repeated speciation, a phenomenon which has been observed.They declare that God created birds and fish when He first populated the earth. So, any idea that birds 'evolved' from something is in direct contradiction to God's claim that He made them.
Yes, I would agree that (the theory of evolution) stands on the same epistemological foundation as any other scientific theory. Yes, for most, that would then mean that there is no reason not to accept it provisionally, as all scientific theories are accepted. You will get no argument from me as far as that applying to the general population at large. However, none of that makes either the theory of evolution of any of those other theories, true.
We have microwave ovens because of proven scientific methodology. We have a lot of things today that have been created through the use of proven scientific methodology and I have no problem with science as a field of study and I do absolutely agree that it does give us knowledge of a lot of things in the world around us. However, there is a difference to me, of what is 'proven' scientific principles that lead to an increase in our knowledge of things vs. possible theories that might explain some phenomenon, but haven't actually been proven to be the answer to that phenomenon.
Both you and expo do seem to understand, that so far, what we know about evolution is based on purely theoretical understanding. That the theories that we have so far do seem to give us possible answers, but as far as being able to definitively say that this equals that...we aren't there yet.
God bless,
In Christ, ted
As I suspect you know, he is engaging in a little rhetorical game. Hoping to smear evolution supporters with the stench of those who would countenance killing the unborn. Abortion, yay or nay, is an entirely disconnected issue.
Thanks for your response. I'm sure this is going to get pretty difficult if we continue, but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what those patterns that have been observed are. If you would be able to just post back the names of the processes, I'd do some investigating on my own.
Handling with Kid gloves, 'in your face', etc.... Doesn't seem to matter.
So why are you here?That's because we already like who we are and what we believe. We don't need or want to change, the same way that you don't want to change.
So no, we do not need your 'help'. Thank you very much.
The scripture is very clear about 6 day creation and no death before sin. If any science goes against that then its the science that is mistaken.
Genesis is not a science book and does not delve into genetics.
If science says millions of years before mankind came about and along with it millions of years of death then I reject what science says about that. Doesn't mean I reject all science, so long as it isn't contradicting the firm principles of the Bible.
Or that the Genesis stories were not intended by their author (God, ultimately, since Christians believe them to be divinely inspired) to be 100% accurate literal history.The Bible says that sin caused death. So no death before sin. (animal and human)It says that Eve is the mother of all the living and that we all inherited original sin from Adam. Those are the firm facts the Bible lays out. It says God made man on day 6, breathed into his nostrils and he became a living being. He wasn't stupid or an ape-man, he was a man who could talk and reason.
Evolution teaches millions of years of death before mankind walked upright. That man slowly evolved into a thinking reasoning individual. Right? Those two world views conflict. You can't believe both.
For sure some Christians try and marry them together by coming up with other theories like a gap, that the first world was built on evolution and then another created in 6 days.
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?