AV's old earth has been in existence for only 6000 years. For the Earth, that's not old at all. And the starting point for AV is 6000 years ago. He will not venture beyond that point.Yes, God created the Earth 6000 years ago. But he didn't create a young Earth 6000 years ago. According to AV he created an old Earth. So AV is not a "young Earth" creationist.
Biblical creationism in any form. Literal inerrancy is derived from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which only Protestants adhere to.
AV's old earth has been in existence for only 6000 years.
For the Earth, that's not old at all.
And the starting point for AV is 6000 years ago.
He will not venture beyond that point.
The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .Thats kind () of the point about evolution.
Why?The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation
I suppose you feel obligated to think thatThe better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation
Micro- macro assumes an invisible nonEvolution above the species level .
The better question should be whether it’s a purely naturalistic evolution or not .
I subscribe to natural selection but instead of random mutation I say directed mutation
I suppose you feel obligated to think that because of religious beliefs you chose to adopt.
Issues obvious in that include-Zero evidence that it's directed.
Known mechanisms for mutation that no more call on divine intervention than lightning does.
If you like questions, Which mutatins are presumed to be directed, which not?
why assume a god of lesser capacity, who couldn't set the universe up to do what he wants, without having to meddle and tinker on the fly like itx an old british sports car?
Why introduce a new theory, and believe it when there's zero data for the new, and no issues with existing theory?
Zero evidence that it's directed.
Known mechanisms for mutation
If you like questions,
Which mutatins are presumed to be directed, which not?
It's a very good analogy & the above applies perfectly.why assume a god of lesser capacity, who,couldn't
set the universe up to do what he wants, without
having to meddle and tinker on the fly like itx an old
british sports car?
Micro- macro assumes an invisible non existent line.
Like between warm and cold.
Big and small.
And trying to deny the undeniable for religious reasons.
None of that has anything to do with what is actually happening as evolution proceeds.The known mechanisms for mutation are the evidence for direction.
Because random mutations destroy the specificity of the gene, you can't turn a bacteria into a human being by simply introducing random error.
You will destroy the organism long before you ever achieve this.
As above, mutations which destroy functional information are random/ undirected- this is what we expect mathematically, and what we observe in nature and experimentally. And is also referred to as micro-evolution.
The 'mutations' which produced e.g. entire new proteins crucial to macroevolutionary events like the Cambrian explosion- are the exact opposite phenomena, the introduction of vast new volumes of functional information. = macro-evolution, and cannot be explained by mere random errors.
In short:
micro/backward steps are random
macro/forward steps are not
It's a very good analogy & the above applies perfectly.
Random deterioration of the car is what we expect and observe through entropy. Parts will wear out and rust gradually/ specified functionality is lost. (micro evolution)
But occasionally we see changes in the opposite direction, a brand new part will suddenly appear, providing a brand new function- a transmission with a whole extra gear perhaps. (macro-evolution)
You cannot extrapolate the first mechanism to explain the second, they are entirely opposite in direction.
I wouldn’t say that we can say this is evolution at all because we don’t really know that one came from the other. I can arrange a bunch of pictures of different fish or insects in a particular order but that doesn’t mean it’s an ancestral genealogy. I would say that it could be considered to be evidence but it’s definitely inconclusive evidence.I wonder if this time someone will address the link below:
Trilobites through horseshoe crabs to scorpions
Surely Creationists cannot say this is "micro evolution"?
Many such mistakes have been made.I wouldn’t say that we can say this is evolution at all because we don’t really know that one came from the other. I can arrange a bunch of pictures of different fish or insects in a particular order but that doesn’t mean it’s an ancestral genealogy.
That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.None of that has anything to do with what is actually happening as evolution proceeds.
That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.
Darwin's model (not an ism) explains how adaption results from selection of characteristics. It does not provide a mechanism for the generation of new variation from which selection takes place. Such things (mutation) were not known when Darwin wrote his book.That would be the point; Darwinism doesn't explain how evolution proceeds, only how it regresses.
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?