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.
I think a lot of misguided people have tried to use science to disparage Christian faith. But I notice that Christian Churches are generally open to things like evolution. So Huxley and Wells might be on target with a few sects that reject science, but for most of us, it's just funny.
Comparative genomics supports macroevolution in all sorts of ways. For one, species on particular branches of life share not only functional elements (which could be explained by a common designer, just as a shared spine could be), but nonfunctional ones as well. For example, all apes and monkeys share an inability to make their own vitamin C because they lack a functioning version of a particular gene. The gene is still there in all of their genomes, in recognizably the same place, but it's badly broken, and often broken in the same ways. Some other species (e.g. guinea pigs) have also lost functional versions of the same gene, but they're broken in different ways. This makes sense assuming common descent is correct: the primate share the broken gene because they've all inherited it from a common ancestor in which it first broke.
Hitler actually tried that. He had the Gestapo rush in and grab some hosts at consecration. Then they analyzed it. Still bread and wine. Because he never figured out what transubstantiation actually means.
Scientists would have told him that science cannot consider the miraculous. YECs and Hitler never figured that out.
Nope. For reasons that seem to be difficult for some to understand. As you probably know, most Christians accept Jesus' words and the miracle of transubstantiation.
I read through your article. It is very well written and easy to understand. It explains what others were trying to say. The last line in your conclusion sums up my thoughts on the matter: “Of course, none of this says anything at all about God’s role in human origins, nor does it rule out miraculous intervention. But it does provide strong evidence that we share ancestry with other species.”
He didn't ask.
Not too many working on transubstantiation, though. Supposedly, one of the Nuremberg defendants was a Biblical scholar, but he was doing other tasks for Adolf.
Because he was kinda annoyed that they showed how eugenics was scientifically unsupportable. Hitler preferred the racial theories of ICR co-founder William Tinkle.
Lab technicians, anyway. SS employees. Like Hitler, they were materialists. so transubstantiation was a complete mystery to them.
Other than the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. That was concerning.
God's ongoing presence in our midst.
Here it is:
I won't argue with you on that point based on the Sumerian religious views. I still favor Enlil because he wanted to destroy the humans because they were too loud
.
What we see happening in observed cases of macroevolution is that the genome usually doesn't change that much. Reproductive isolation can come about with relatively few mutations. However, common descent gets a huge boost from genetics, because the "tree of life" first noticed by Linnaeus very nicely fits phylogenies based on DNA.
Well, homologies are very good evidence for macroevolution as YEC Dr. Kurt Wise says. But genetic data is also powerful evidence for evolution.
