Does science change?

[Tom 1]

The more I’ve thought about this post the more I’ve reconsidered my fairly passive acceptance of science as truth in general. How reliable is science? Take nutrition for example; for decades, science has been telling us, the general public, that the way to avoid obesity, heart disease and general ill health is a diet low in saturated fats and high in carbohydrates. Quite literally thousands or possibly even 100s of thousands worldwide of people trained in the sciences have pushed this idea, in the face of existing evidence against it. Now other trained scientists are telling us that in fact this dietary advice may be behind the huge increase in all of the things it was supposed to prevent, and that the total opposite of that dietary advice is now ‘true’. And how do you explain away those scientists, often at the top of their fields, who go from being celebrated to being pooh-poohed by others in the scientific community when they say things other scientists aren’t comfortable with, like Mario Livio, Robert Millikan, and Michiu Kaku? Or guys like Richard Dawkins who are quite happy to bend historical facts into all kinds of distorted shapes to support their own worldview, and can’t seem to avoid letting slip their own (possibly unconscious) beliefs in a mystical, volitional ‘life’ force. There’s more to this picture.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . If you make the claim that scientific conclusions that spawn out of secular mainstream science and the Bible actually agree, but then very carefully do not regard the interaction between the two and default to the 'science trumps scripture' mentality - the Bible is no longer inerrant, no longer the authority of truth, and least of all perspicuous.

This is nonsense and you don't actually follow your own advice. When you are convinced by science instead of scripture that something is actually true, you go with the science.

We all do this together in the face of the science that asserts the earth rotates as the cause of day and night.

How do we know it isn't the sun, rather, moving across the sky?

If we follow your suggestion that mere science cannot refute scripture, no matter what, then we must face verse after verse that asserts the sun rose, or the sun set . . . and we must consider how Joshua, after all, told the sun to stand still, not the earth to stop rotating. Indeed, its not merely Joshua, but the sacred words of scripture itself that tell us "So the sun stood still . . . "

Josh 10:13
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
NASU

The plain literal teaching of these verses actually stood in the way of mere science as scientists sought to share their idea that the earth rotates. The record is plain, the religious people, as religious as you, asserted science was wrong and scripture was to be followed rather than science.

What happened? What made so many of you bible believers accept the rotation of the earth?

We all know, of course. You believe science over the bible in that case.

So your knowledge of science guides you how to interpret the Bible, rather than your knowledge of the Bible guiding your opinion about the science. We watch you do that and then post that you don't do that.

 

[Meowzltov]

Christians do not reject science, but they do reject ideas that influence science that do not honour Gor or are based on pagan ideas.

Science is not based on pagan ideas, or ideas of any religion. Science is based on objective evidence.

 

[NobleMouse]

This is nonsense and you don't actually follow your own advice. When you are convinced by science instead of scripture that something is actually true, you go with the science.

We all do this together in the face of the science that asserts the earth rotates as the cause of day and night.

How do we know it isn't the sun, rather, moving across the sky?

If we follow your suggestion that mere science cannot refute scripture, no matter what, then we must face verse after verse that asserts the sun rose, or the sun set . . . and we must consider how Joshua, after all, told the sun to stand still, not the earth to stop rotating. Indeed, its not merely Joshua, but the sacred words of scripture itself that tell us "So the sun stood still . . . "

Josh 10:13
13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies.
Is it not written in the book of Jashar? And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
NASU

The plain literal teaching of these verses actually stood in the way of mere science as scientists sought to share their idea that the earth rotates. The record is plain, the religious people, as religious as you, asserted science was wrong and scripture was to be followed rather than science.

What happened? What made so many of you bible believers accept the rotation of the earth?

We all know, of course. You believe science over the bible in that case.

So your knowledge of science guides you how to interpret the Bible, rather than your knowledge of the Bible guiding your opinion about the science. We watch you do that and then post that you don't do that.

Quite the diatribe there brother Paul. I must not have explained well so we'll work off your example. In the case of the sun moving across the sky this is describing the perspective of the writer (as you and I will see the sun move across the sky tomorrow, if not too cloudy). Science tells us the sun rotates, explaining this phenomenon. In this case, science and scripture agree (science is not saying something different than what is plainly understood and described from the Bible). As you referenced from Joshua, I would understand this to mean that God literally held the earth still such that the sun/moon did not move across the sky. By contrast, the Bible does not support billions of years and life being evolved from molecules, this comes from science (and is highly theoretical/unobserved in nature) and so as I mentioned in my prior post, as a Christian we should recognize this and not be so quick to dismiss the truth of the Bible in accepting that which no one has ever even once observed--though I understand that you believe science almighty over the word of God from our prior discussions in other threads.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Quite the diatribe there brother Paul. I must not have explained well so we'll work off your example. In the case of the sun moving across the sky this is describing the perspective of the writer (as you and I will see the sun move across the sky tomorrow, if not too cloudy). Science tells us the sun rotates, explaining this phenomenon. In this case, science and scripture agree (science is not saying something different than what is plainly understood and described from the Bible). As you referenced from Joshua, I would understand this to mean that God literally held the earth still such that the sun/moon did not move across the sky. By contrast, the Bible does not support billions of years and life being evolved from molecules, this comes from science (and is highly theoretical/unobserved in nature) and so as I mentioned in my prior post, as a Christian we should recognize this and not be so quick to dismiss the truth of the Bible in accepting that which no one has ever even once observed--though I understand that you believe science almighty over the word of God from our prior discussions in other threads.

there you go, re-interpreting scripture to agree with your knowledge of science, the very thing you say we must not do. And then saying you aren't doing it, even as we watch you do it.

 

[Tom 1]

The more I’ve thought about this post the more I’ve reconsidered my fairly passive acceptance of science as truth in general. How reliable is science? Take nutrition for example; for decades, science has been telling us, the general public, that the way to avoid obesity, heart disease and general ill health is a diet low in saturated fats and high in carbohydrates. Quite literally thousands or possibly even 100s of thousands worldwide of people trained in the sciences have pushed this idea, in the face of existing evidence against it. Now other trained scientists are telling us that in fact this dietary advice may be behind the huge increase in all of the things it was supposed to prevent, and that the total opposite of that dietary advice is now ‘true’. And how do you explain away those scientists, often at the top of their fields, who go from being celebrated to being pooh-poohed by others in the scientific community when they say things other scientists aren’t comfortable with, like Mario Livio, Robert Millikan, and Michiu Kaku? Or guys like Richard Dawkins who are quite happy to bend historical facts into all kinds of distorted shapes to support their own worldview, and can’t seem to avoid letting slip their own (possibly unconscious) beliefs in a mystical, volitional ‘life’ force. There’s more to this picture.

Is it bad etiquette to respond to your own post? Apologies if so, but a good example of what I am getting at came to mind. If you haven’t come across Rupert Sheldrake,he is a gifted scientist and author who worked (or still works?) in developmental biology at Cambridge Uni in the UK. He is the author of the ‘science delusion’, in which he challenges the foundational notion of scientism, i.e that we live in a mechanical universe. I’m not sure if that is the correct terminology, but essentially the idea that the universe is a purely physical construct, and has no non physical dimensions of any sort. His work has, predictably, been scoffed at by other scientists in the field. Why is that? My generally liberal education would prompt me to say that it’s because ‘science proves him wrong’, but, well, it doesn’t. We either believe that someone like Sheldrake is mistaken because we have a vague notion that science offers concrete proof to the contrary, or because of training in science that offers methods of determining certain things, which then become part of a belief system or intellectual construct that extrapolates that out and becomes a worldview, one that is consistent and complex but nonetheless a belief system, based in some certainties, but also in conclusions about the world at large than only follow on from those certainties within a particular boundaried mindset.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Is it bad etiquette to respond to your own post? Apologies if so, but a good example of what I am getting at came to mind. If you haven’t come across Rupert Sheldrake,he is a gifted scientist and author who worked (or still works?) in developmental biology at Cambridge Uni in the UK. He is the author of the ‘science delusion’, in which he challenges the foundational notion of scientism, i.e that we live in a mechanical universe. I’m not sure if that is the correct terminology, but essentially the idea that the universe is a purely physical construct, and has no non physical dimensions of any sort. His work has, predictably, been scoffed at by other scientists in the field. Why is that? My generally liberal education would prompt me to say that it’s because ‘science proves him wrong’, but, well, it doesn’t. We either believe that someone like Sheldrake is mistaken because we have a vague notion that science offers concrete proof to the contrary, or because of training in science that offers methods of determining certain things, which then become part of a belief system or intellectual construct that extrapolates that out and becomes a worldview, one that is consistent and complex but nonetheless a belief system, based in some certainties, but also in conclusions about the world at large than only follow on from those certainties within a particular boundaried mindset.

There's no reason to toss evolution out just because one wishes to acknowledge the spiritual dimensions of our lives.

 

[Tom 1]

There's no reason to toss evolution out just because one wishes to acknowledge the spiritual dimensions of our lives.

Yes I agree, I’m not attempting to toss evolution out, or any other theory. I’m just pointing out that the ‘world of science’ isn’t as consistent and watertight as it seems at first glance.

 

[Tom 1]

There's no reason to toss evolution out just because one wishes to acknowledge the spiritual dimensions of our lives.

There’s more to Sheldrake’s book than acknowledging a spiritual dimension, he challenges some of the most fundamental ideas of the scientific mindset. Worth a read

 

[NobleMouse]

there you go, re-interpreting scripture to agree with your knowledge of science, the very thing you say we must not do. And then saying you aren't doing it, even as we watch you do it.

My interpretation is not different than what it says. You have a bias against YEC's and suggest I've reinterpreted scripture, but have no basis for this (other than to say I have re-interpreted scripture). The only one you've convinced that scripture has been reinterpreted is yourself. Odd, coming from a fellow brother who doesn't believe that Genesis is historical and true and that the flood written about in Genesis is also not true despite references to it elsewhere in scripture including Jesus Himself. So, who is re-interpreting scripture based upon their 'knowledge' of science??

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

My interpretation is not different than what it says. You have a bias against YEC's and suggest I've reinterpreted scripture, but have no basis for this (other than to say I have re-interpreted scripture). The only one you've convinced that scripture has been reinterpreted is yourself. Odd, coming from a fellow brother who doesn't believe that Genesis is historical and true and that the flood written about in Genesis is also not true despite references to it elsewhere in scripture including Jesus Himself. So, who is re-interpreting scripture based upon their 'knowledge' of science??

Why, you are, and you are contradicting the literal statements of the Bible in regard to how the sun moves instead of the earth rotating. No use denying it, and no use denying you have to reinterpret the Bible. We see you do it. Of course, you should understand I don't object to re-interpreting the Bible in that way; God's truth doesn't contradict God's truth. Its YOU who claims we can't do that and then goes right ahead and does it when it suits you, and for that I will call you out.

Since evolution happened, all interpretations of the Bible that deny evolution are incorrect, as incorrect as all the interpretations of the Bible that deny the rotation of the earth. Historically, there were many of them, you know. Sincere people who denied the rotation of the earth because they believed the Bible over science. They were wrong to deny the truth, but they were as sincere in the wrong beliefs as you are.

 

[fat wee robin]

Evolution doesn't contradict any of these. I agree that intelligent design (dare I use this phrase?) is injected from the spiritual realm to cause highly unlikely random events to become highly likely and capable of building sophisticated chemistry-based and quantum mechanics-based organisms. But the framework and mechanisms of evolution are true and fully operational and capable of much more that skeptics of it are usually aware.

I accept modern science except its rejection of the spiritual realm. Thus, the physical aspects of evolution are correct, but they miss the spiritual contribution. The same with consciousness; they try to explain it without souls or mind or the spiritual realm.

What does 'evolution' have to do with proven science.? You are lumping together a theory, which is purely speculative ,with that which is not only proven but part of our daily lives ,modern technology .
We do 'evolve 'in a sort of way as we grow in conciousness of the amazing creation , and of the Creator who made it .

 

[GBTG]

And the ideas in this argument go round and round, round and round... all day long!

Definition of insanity!

Again what would it take for any one of you to switch sides? YEC says the bible is right no matter what and will not acknowledge proven science (theories are another matter). Yes I know there is a difference between theories and scientific theories, but their not as far apart as science would like to assume.

OEC says observable science is biblical as God created everything including science, but seeks to change the understanding of what is traditional taught from the Bible.

Whales being a prime examples! In the 5th day of creation God makes "whales" according to translated scripture. In the Hebrew it can be stated as "land or sea monster", could a dinosaur then qualify as a land and sea monster (as the fossil record shows) in the untranslated scroll?

Which is right, the translation, or the original?

Science supports the latter, not the former, but which is more accurate according to the Bible?

Yes Bible versions do matter! Any translation is not as accurate as the original!

Again this argument is about tradition, not about accuracy! IF, it were about accuracy we could all agree, that the Hebrew text is talking about land and sea monsters (dinosaurs according the fossil record), and this would make the Bible more accurate, not less! However tradition says "whales" (which is a translated noun) therefore it must be "whales" and science is completely absurd for suggesting otherwise.

Stupid science, words are from the Bible.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[NobleMouse]

Why, you are, and you are contradicting the literal statements of the Bible in regard to how the sun moves instead of the earth rotating. No use denying it, and no use denying you have to reinterpret the Bible. We see you do it. Of course, you should understand I don't object to re-interpreting the Bible in that way; God's truth doesn't contradict God's truth. Its YOU who claims we can't do that and then goes right ahead and does it when it suits you, and for that I will call you out.

I think I see where you are coming from, so I'll try to expound on my prior comments. So, yes the earth rotates around the sun and the Bible describes in Joshua the phenomenon of the sun moving across the sky. At the time Joshua was written, it may not have been understood that the earth rotates (though this cannot conclusively be stated as a hard and fast fact). Let's assume for this discussion that the earth's rotation was not understood at the time the book of Joshua was written.

My Assumption:
The Bible is true

Our Example:
From the book of Joshua, we read in Joshua 10:13 that the sun and moon were held still until the nation of Israel could complete the night attack on the Amorites. So, what was known at the time is that ordinarily the sun and moon moved across the sky. As you may have observed the sun earlier this morning as you came into work, you may have noticed it is no longer in the same place as you are reading this message. Thus, the idea that the sun/moon move across the sky is observably true.

What Science Says:
Science explains the sun / moon moving across the sky the earth rotating on it's axis. This produces the effect and is in alignment with what is described in Joshua, and it is observable. From the international space station, the rotation of the earth can be seen - no question. The key here is that it is observable (and if in doubt it can be re-tested every day). Christians and specifically YEC scientists who believe the earth is young do not ignore or disagree with physical laws, the scientific method, nor that which can be observed and repeatedly tested... all of which is a solid base for doing good science - would you agree?


Now, there are events in the past that cannot be observed here in the present. In these cases (and specifically in terms of science), what is done is evidence is gathered here in the present and interpreted to tell us something of what may have happened in the past to arrive at the present. Ideas of evolution, billions of years, and big bangs are all attempts to form plausible stories to arrive at the present conditions. Moving on to what is done by YEC scientists, identically, evidence is gathered here in the present and interpreted to tell us something of what may have happened in the past to arrive at the present. Where the divergence occurs is that there are passages from the Bible that tell us a little about the physical world around us and how life came to be - these act as a kind of guardrail that tells us that the scientific hypotheses and theories developed will fit with that limited, general understanding (like having the edge pieces of a puzzle... the picture we fill in the middle will fit within the edge pieces). Both YEC scientists and their secular colleagues go through the same process of developing plausible stories to fit with the present evidence.

For the Bible to be true (which you and I agree it is), a few clues are given in regard to what must be true regarding life:

1. God created marine life and birds on day 5.

2. God made the beast of the earth on day 6 (livestock, creeping things, beasts).

3. God made man in His image and likeness and intended man to have dominion over all the life previously created, also on day 6.

4. Like that which was created in the sea and on land, God made man male and female - to be fruitful and multiply.

5. Man was formed of the dust from the ground and God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and man became a living creature.

6. Creation happened over a period of 6 days with God resting on the 7th day.

Stopping at 6, there are some disconnects with evolution, given the few things that must be true as given above: To start, it must be true that at the time of creation birds could fly - that is, in the day they were created they were already flying - no gradual, progressive development of a budding, pseudo-wing structure. We're also given reference (depending on the version you use) to "whales" in the KJV and "fish" in the ESV so it must be true that at their creation, sea life had working fins such that life could move about and 'swarm in the waters' as we're told. Further, man was formed from the dust of the ground... we don't know exactly what 'the dust of the ground' is, but whatever this is it is anything BUT other life. Man was created separate and special, in God's image and likeness and we are aware of this truth today are we not? When you go to the zoo, who is observing who? Who is on the inside and who is on the outside? Who ponders where they came from and who their creator is, what is right, what is wrong? It must be true that man is separate and distinct as it was God's plan to allow His Holy Spirit to indwell man such that the body of man would become a temple of the Holy Spirit when man became aware of his sinful condition and confessed Jesus as Lord and asked for salvation.

The story of evolution fit well in these few truths. Science absolutely does support the sun moving across the sky and a good reason to believe the science is because it aligns with the fundamental truth that we already know to be true from scripture. Further proof that the science supporting the sun moving across the sky is that it is observable. This is different than the story of evolution. Evolution is propped up in a framework that tells us life grew in complexity from the first life form (a simple molecule) through natural laws-much different than the truths that are known from the Bible. The molecule does not have fins, does not fly, became a man through many animal-like developmental stages (not the dust of the ground). There was a first (fully) man, and first (fully) woman.

Aside from the theological/doctrinal discontinuities - just scientifically speaking there is no observed natural law that accounts for the addition of new, functional/meaningful genetic information. Genetic mutations are by nature degenerative (not adding useful/purposeful function, rather function is destroyed or 'mutated'). Gene duplication most often does not produce new genes as the duplicated genes are silenced stochastically. Natural selection works with the existing genetic material, enhancing existing features optimally for the environment. On top of all of this, our genetic coding seems to function in a way as to always be in a state of trying to repair and restore cells to their intended healthy function - removing damage and mutations when and where possible--though we know death and disease do exist and so this is not always successfully carried out... another truth from the Bible (death through sin) that is observable through science. As science gives us a better understanding of how DNA and our cells work, the story of evolution becomes more and more compromised and needs further revision.

Since evolution happened, all interpretations of the Bible that deny evolution are incorrect, as incorrect as all the interpretations of the Bible that deny the rotation of the earth. Historically, there were many of them, you know. Sincere people who denied the rotation of the earth because they believed the Bible over science. They were wrong to deny the truth, but they were as sincere in the wrong beliefs as you are.

To my original post and from what I've expounded on above, this is why I believe Christians should be cautious and not ascribe much weight to theoretical science that is not observed, nor able to repeatably be tested (such as the theory of (implied macro-)evolution) - such concepts do not warrant throwing out understood truths from the Bible. The book of Genesis is certainly describing a process, and observable evidence such as DNA does give further insight as to how God has 'programmed' life to function according to His plan, but much still remains unknown, the story of evolution is theoretical, and it does not currently fit the known truths of the Bible.

God bless -

 

[NobleMouse]

Again what would it take for any one of you to switch sides? YEC says the bible is right no matter what and will not acknowledge proven science (theories are another matter). Yes I know there is a difference between theories and scientific theories, but their not as far apart as science would like to assume.

Hello GBTG! Wanted to get your perspective on evolution. Is this what I'll call "macro" evolution (molecule-to-man) proven science though has not been observed, cannot be repeated, and cannot be tested? What qualifies as proven science? The term "proven" seems to be getting more and more loose these days.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . From the book of Joshua, we read in Joshua 10:13 that the sun and moon were held still until the nation of Israel could complete the night attack on the Amorites. So, what was known at the time is that ordinarily the sun and moon moved across the sky. As you may have observed the sun earlier this morning as you came into work, you may have noticed it is no longer in the same place as you are reading this message. Thus, the idea that the sun/moon move across the sky is observably true . . ..

No it is only apparently true. The sun is actually taking part in a grand orbit around the galaxy and the galaxy, in turn, is cruising through the universe, but none of that changed when Joshua made his plea. Nor does it change when the sun appears to set or rise.

You continue to be willing to change how you interpret the Bible regarding the motions of the sun or the earth, contrary to the uniform literal words of the Bible that always assert the earth is unmoving and it is the Sun that moves around to cause day and night.

In doing this you continue to fail to follow your own demand for following the literal words of scripture even when they oppose the findings of science.

Just because, in that case, you accept the findings of science.

Evolution is well established, as is the billions year history of the earth.

Many of us who understand that to be the truth continue to believe the Bible and accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. We are in the churches with you. We sing, we pray, we worship, we tithe and support the ministry. And that's going to continue.

 

[GBTG]

Hello GBTG! Wanted to get your perspective on evolution. Is this what I'll call "macro" evolution (molecule-to-man) proven science though has not been observed, cannot be repeated, and cannot be tested? What qualifies as proven science? The term "proven" seems to be getting more and more loose these days.

Proven science is applied science, specifically engineering. Your car is proof of science, an atom bomb is proof of science, a 474... you get the idea. If we are talking biological science, evolution is not proven it is a proposed theory, not a scientific one, just like cell theory. Cell theory states that all cells must come from a previous living cell. To my mind this is a cop out theory, we (man) cannot create life in any capacity. Many atheist would argue that growing cells on an agar plate will show you this theory to be true... but this theory is a just a way to not acknowledge creation, specifically life. I could make the same argument for the first law of thermodynamics and matter(atoms).

NOTHING in the fossil record shows Macro-evolution to be true in any capacity. Looking at biological organelles is a poor argument from either side as all life shares DNA, viruses (not technically alive), bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, insects, fish, spiders, etc. all share the same 4 nucleotide pairs. Everyone always focus on what separates us from chimps what about everything else? All mammals share greater than 73% of our DNA. Only 14% of your DNA is keeping you from being a whale, only 8% from being a cat, 12% from a dog or mouse. ALL life shares 100% of the DNA. If macro-evolution were indeed true? Why do mammals have different chromosome pairs and numbers? Where does the "extra" DNA come from to create a new chromosome? Why, when you cross a horse and a donkey, is the offspring always infertile (mule)? If Macro-evolution were true these would be unnatural barriers to have evolved, as they are directly against the supposed action of the theory. Lastly the infamous fossil record argument! No where in the fossil record is there evidence that one species ever became another. Many Macro-evolutionists will state that they may exist but, we would not recognize them as "missing links" because the change was so subtle over billions of years. There are three problems with this aspect of the theory. First if macro-evolution were an actual law of nature we would not need to look at the fossil record, Macro-evolution would be happening all the time, even right now. Given the observations and scientific studies that are performed all over the world, one would assume that there would be evidence in the living record. Unless one assumes that all species evolve at the same rate? Secondly, in every fossil record we can observe, in geology, the speciation is extremely rapid, as is the spread of life, this is in direct contrast to the "billions" of years necessary. Lastly the spread of life is inversely proportional to aspect of the survival of the fittest. As Darwin described with small, medium, and large beaked finches, as are all vying for survival but only those that survive reproduce. The problem with this is where did the 3 varieties of finches come from in the first place? Jean Baptiste Lamarck, should get some credit for figuring out Epigenetics 200 hundred years before we could prove it.

Macro-evolution is proven science as we can see the difference between a Chihuahua and a Doberman, both are still dogs, but both have been selectively bred for certain traits.

God was not mistaken when He stated each after their kind.

Warm regards, GBTG

 

[RadiantGrace]

Proven science is applied science, specifically engineering.

No, engineering is called engineering because it is applied science. If it were all that science were, it would be called science. Science refers to knowledge gained through the senses.

Your car is proof of science, an atom bomb is proof of science, a 474... you get the idea. If we are talking biological science, evolution is not proven it is a proposed theory, not a scientific one, just like cell theory. Cell theory states that all cells must come from a previous living cell. To my mind this is a cop out theory, we (man) cannot create life in any capacity. Many atheist would argue that growing cells on an agar plate will show you this theory to be true... but this theory is a just a way to not acknowledge creation, specifically life. I could make the same argument for the first law of thermodynamics and matter(atoms).

Evolution is consistently proven in every aspect of biology and medicine.

NOTHING in the fossil record shows Macro-evolution to be true in any capacity. Looking at biological organelles is a poor argument from either side as all life shares DNA, viruses (not technically alive), bacteria, fungi, plants, animals, insects, fish, spiders, etc. all share the same 4 nucleotide pairs. Everyone always focus on what separates us from chimps what about everything else? All mammals share greater than 73% of our DNA. Only 14% of your DNA is keeping you from being a whale, only 8% from being a cat, 12% from a dog or mouse. ALL life shares 100% of the DNA. If macro-evolution were indeed true? Why do mammals have different chromosome pairs and numbers? Where does the "extra" DNA come from to create a new chromosome? Why, when you cross a horse and a donkey, is the offspring always infertile (mule)? If Macro-evolution were true these would be unnatural barriers to have evolved, as they are directly against the supposed action of the theory. Lastly the infamous fossil record argument! No where in the fossil record is there evidence that one species ever became another. Many Macro-evolutionists will state that they may exist but, we would not recognize them as "missing links" because the change was so subtle over billions of years. There are three problems with this aspect of the theory. First if macro-evolution were an actual law of nature we would not need to look at the fossil record, Macro-evolution would be happening all the time, even right now. Given the observations and scientific studies that are performed all over the world, one would assume that there would be evidence in the living record. Unless one assumes that all species evolve at the same rate? Secondly, in every fossil record we can observe, in geology, the speciation is extremely rapid, as is the spread of life, this is in direct contrast to the "billions" of years necessary. Lastly the spread of life is inversely proportional to aspect of the survival of the fittest. As Darwin described with small, medium, and large beaked finches, as are all vying for survival but only those that survive reproduce. The problem with this is where did the 3 varieties of finches come from in the first place? Jean Baptiste Lamarck, should get some credit for figuring out Epigenetics 200 hundred years before we could prove it.

Macro-evolution is proven science as we can see the difference between a Chihuahua and a Doberman, both are still dogs, but both have been selectively bred for certain traits.

God was not mistaken when He stated each after their kind.

Warm regards, GBTG

Macro evolution is a outdated and as they use it, nonsense term, touted by Creationists to support their logical fallacy. They cannot deny evolution, that things do change. So they create a completely unscientific, baseless, made up, illogical argument that evolution has limits.

Your argument is that a nonsense term abused by creationists would be happening all the times proves creationism? Macro-evolution is really not a term used within science and it certainly is not what creationists make it out to be. It refers to large shifts in genetics. Creationists tend to think it means monkeys giving birth to humans.

 

[Job 33:6]

The more I’ve thought about this post the more I’ve reconsidered my fairly passive acceptance of science as truth in general. How reliable is science? Take nutrition for example; for decades, science has been telling us, the general public, that the way to avoid obesity, heart disease and general ill health is a diet low in saturated fats and high in carbohydrates. Quite literally thousands or possibly even 100s of thousands worldwide of people trained in the sciences have pushed this idea, in the face of existing evidence against it. Now other trained scientists are telling us that in fact this dietary advice may be behind the huge increase in all of the things it was supposed to prevent, and that the total opposite of that dietary advice is now ‘true’. And how do you explain away those scientists, often at the top of their fields, who go from being celebrated to being pooh-poohed by others in the scientific community when they say things other scientists aren’t comfortable with, like Mario Livio, Robert Millikan, and Michiu Kaku? Or guys like Richard Dawkins who are quite happy to bend historical facts into all kinds of distorted shapes to support their own worldview, and can’t seem to avoid letting slip their own (possibly unconscious) beliefs in a mystical, volitional ‘life’ force. There’s more to this picture.

Realistically, if you want to bring up health and longevity of life, without a doubt science has benefited us in that we live far longer than people had 1000 years ago. So, i dont think this is a good argument to make.

 

[Tom 1]

Realistically, if you want to bring up health and longevity of life, without a doubt science has benefited us in that we live far longer than people had 1000 years ago. So, i dont think this is a good argument to make.

What is the argument you think I am making? Perhaps you misunderstood