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.
wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!Your point was that speciation doesn't happen. I showed that not only does speciation happen, but you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to biology and so probably shouldn't be trusted on such matters.
Sure. You start.
time
Maybe we should compare the benefits of evolutionary science with creation science.
Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity
Science shows there's time enough for evolutionary change to take place. The Bible might imply otherwise, but the Bible says the sky is a solid dome, too. It isn't a science textbook.wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!
Except we aren't saved by our belief in creation science. We are saved by our faith in Christ as our saviour. One can believe in a young, specially-created earth and still not be saved. Look at Muslims.Evolution: flu vaccines and other medical treatments to help our lives.
Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity
In the abst of the most read article, it said:
"The canyon between evolutionary biology and medicine is wide. ..."
This article was written in 2008. You tell me why does this "canyon" still exist after the idea of evolution was brought up a few hundreds of years ago.
I tell you why: Medicine have already used all methods of study known to science. But it does not need to mention the very word of evolution even for a single time. Evolution is an idea, not a scientific method. There is not ONE scientific method (based on logic) needs the idea of evolution.
Evolutionary biology is an essential basic science for medicine, but few doctors and medical researchers are familiar with its most relevant principles. Most medical schools have geneticists who understand evolution, but few have even one evolutionary biologist to suggest other possible applications. The canyon between evolutionary biology and medicine is wide. The question is whether they offer each other enough to make bridge building worthwhile. What benefits could be expected if evolution were brought fully to bear on the problems of medicine? How would studying medical problems advance evolutionary research? Do doctors need to learn evolution, or is it valuable mainly for researchers? What practical steps will promote the application of evolutionary biology in the areas of medicine where it offers the most? To address these questions, we review current and potential applications of evolutionary biology to medicine and public health. Some evolutionary technologies, such as population genetics, serial transfer production of live vaccines, and phylogenetic analysis, have been widely applied. Other areas, such as infectious disease and aging research, illustrate the dramatic recent progress made possible by evolutionary insights. In still other areas, such as epidemiology, psychiatry, and understanding the regulation of bodily defenses, applying evolutionary principles remains an open opportunity. In addition to the utility of specific applications, an evolutionary perspective fundamentally challenges the prevalent but fundamentally incorrect metaphor of the body as a machine designed by an engineer. Bodies are vulnerable to disease – and remarkably resilient – precisely because they are not machines built from a plan. They are, instead, bundles of compromises shaped by natural selection in small increments to maximize reproduction, not health. Understanding the body as a product of natural selection, not design, offers new research questions and a framework for making medical education more coherent.
I guess there is a big difference in the definition of species between myself and those articles.
The first one goes into great length to make a definition, and I understand why. When dealing with something like gradual change, the line between one "species" and another can be indistinguishable.
Creation: eternal salvation to perfect our lives for eternity
So you are saying that you ignore proper scientific definitions, and redefine words to use to mean something other than their actual definition to suit your own purposes, and expect people to take you seriously?
So, as others have pointed out, you think Jesus is insufficient for salvation, and that Muslims are saved, but not hundreds of millions of Christians of both Protestant and Catholic denominations?
Papias
wow... what a straw man. Al you did was redefine everything to misapply my statement. Good job! My point was concerning the time needed for the big changes to occur that evolution demands. But all you did was talk about semantics. You sure know how to convince a person!
There are a lot of tesimonies from people who saw the evidence of creation and pursued a path to Jesus Christ. A great example is the construction of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, where many of the contruction workers hired to build it weren't Christians, but after seeing the evidence for God and the truth of His word, they sought the salvation of Jesus Christ.
So are we done with the straw men? Or are there some words I misused that you would like to open up some rabbit trails with? Perhaps a speling mistake will prove my argument to be false.
With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?Species to your average person means something entirely different than to a biologist. Here I thought I was talking to average people and they would get my point, but apparently they can't handle my point so they move to a semantics argument and when victorious declare their opponent to be a hack because he isn't as l33t with word games.
With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?
With respect, the only one playing word games is you because you're the one redefining words in order to suit them to your purpose. "Species" has a meaning, so you don't get to apply it willy-nilly to any taxonomic group you like (such as "dinosaur"). Moan about it as much as you like, but you can't escape the fact that you clearly do not have a grasp of even the most basic biological terminology. How can you then expect to be taken seriously when you make grand biological pronouncements that completely fly in the face of established science?
I'm still waiting to hear the biological mechanism which prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution.
What word should I have used to express my disbelief that dinosaurs couldn't turn into birds?
I'm currently working with someone who was completely turned off of Christ by creationism; in fact, from how he understood Christianity there was no other way to believe. In his mind, he had to sacrifice reason and reality to believe in God. I, among others, are trying to help him see that it does not. In the end, if he chooses to become a Christian it will not be because of how eloquently I explain that the scriptures allow for evolution and an ancient universe; it will be because God will reach him through us, His faithful servants. It will be experiential rather than rational.
so we can agree that species will work for all intents and purposes? especially since I didn't really make an argument at all. I'm curious as to why you've been so offensive (defensive?) in this thread.
The question remains: do you know of any real-world application of Creation science as a science? That is the ultimate test of any science; if it cannot be applied or used, it is worthless (as a science). What discoveries have we made using assumptions of Creation science that we would not have gained otherwise?
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?