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.
Argument from personal incredulity?it certainly seems that way.
ATP synthase for example.
it's hard to conceive this molecule forming under natural selection pressure.
plants have a similar process but different.
a nice little conundrum wouldn't you say?
it certainly seems that way.
ATP synthase for example.
it's hard to conceive this molecule forming under natural selection pressure.
plants have a similar process but different.
a nice little conundrum wouldn't you say?
The scientific community uses the term "falsification" very differently than you are using it. Actually evolution has not been falsified according to their protocols, which is one reason why it is still just a theory. And btw you show you bias, and I believe lack of research, by not asking "Why or why not" but only asking "Why not?"Does the falsification of ToE imply a creator? Why not?
The scientific community uses the term "falsification" very differently than you are using it. Actually evolution has not been falsified according to their protocols, which is one reason why it is still just a theory.
The scientific community uses the term "falsification" very differently than you are using it. Actually evolution has not been falsified according to their protocols, which is one reason why it is still just a theory. And btw you show you bias, and I believe lack of research, by not asking "Why or why not" but only asking "Why not?"
I am a creationist and I would say that the evidence for creation, and the Bible, is found w/o even looking at the theory of evolution. It is not that I think evolution has any support, as I do not. In fact this weekend on CF I asked a bunch of Qs of evolution believers, and as usual, they dodged them. You can see the Qs starting at about 1/3 of the way down the webpage: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ism-drive-away-this-past-hour.7879732/page-14
That post also includes evidences for creation and the Bible, though by no means all of the evidences. The data for creation and for intelligent design is out there, but you have to take the time to research that. Sometimes the information is quite technical and takes more than one viewing, maybe multiple viewings before one "gets it."
I do not have time to debate this, as I did on the Sabbath. As you can see no one answered the Qs last Sabbath, no one ever does, and no one who reads those Qs ever will, though they will maybe try to act like they did. Mostly they just make excuses and keep changing the subject. So, I won't be back to this string. What I said in the link above should do fine for "those who have eyes to see". Blessings and bye.
Likewise you need evidence for the lack of one and have none that hypothesis also does not triumph by default.
Paul
Hypothetical.Meanwhile, I'd still like the know what the original poster meant. Were they asking about a supposed falsification of evolution that has already happened, or a hypothetical one?
it certainly seems that way.
ATP synthase for example.
it's hard to conceive this molecule forming under natural selection pressure.
plants have a similar process but different.
a nice little conundrum wouldn't you say?
I am a creationist and I would say that the evidence for creation, and the Bible, is found w/o even looking at the theory of evolution. It is not that I think evolution has any support, as I do not. In fact this weekend on CF I asked a bunch of Qs of evolution believers, and as usual, they dodged them. You can see the Qs starting at about 1/3 of the way down the webpage: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ism-drive-away-this-past-hour.7879732/page-14
That post also includes evidences for creation and the Bible, though by no means all of the evidences. The data for creation and for intelligent design is out there, but you have to take the time to research that. Sometimes the information is quite technical and takes more than one viewing, maybe multiple viewings before one "gets it."
The best take I've heard on this topic comes from Pr. Bill Cwirla, one of the hosts of the internet radio show 'The God Whisperers,' a widely respected LCMS pastor and also a trained and experienced chemist. He takes a 'from above' and 'from below' stance, similar to the two kinds of righteousness or other good Lutheran dichotomies. It has to do with the ontology of creation, how we know what we know, and for what purpose will we use this knowledge.
From below, all we can know is what we can see with our own eyes, what we can see and feel and measure and observe. From below, we can only know that the earth appears to be very old, that the current state of creation seems to have come about gradually over time, and that various identified processes seem to be at work, such as plate tectonics, climate change, evolution, etc. If we are doing science, and working within the framework of scientific thought, we accept these processes as tools useful for explaining and understanding the world in order to make use of it - not uncritically, but with a healthy skepticism typical of all scientific thought. In the pursuit of scientific advancement we accept these processes, once proven, as true within the framework of science, in a utilitarian sense.
From above, however, God has made it known through the Holy Spirit to mankind since the beginning of the world (2 Pet 1:21) that God created the world, that he created it within a short span of time, the order of creation, the means of creation, and the identity of the Creator. We do not know these things by scientific observation but through revelation alone. Not only this, but scripture clearly states that is through faith alone that we know that creation is a direct work of God. It is "by faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." (Heb 11:3). As it pertains to faith, theology, doctrine and godly living, we believe what we have received from the hand of God. Therefore we accept these revelations as true, because of our faith in the One who transcends time and space, who is the "Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it." (Isa 40:28)
So when the question of origins arises, it is best to know for what purpose the question is being asked, whether matters of faith or scientific endeavor. Then we can know which viewpoint is useful, God's view from above, or man's view from below.
This admittedly pragmatic approach goes a long way toward reconciling the two views in my mind, at least. It demonstrates why forcing the theological view into science is not really helpful or desirable; It is not falsifiable, demonstrable or repeatable, and therefore not scientific by definition. And it also demonstrates why trying to force a pseudo-scientific understanding onto a theological context is not really helpful or desirable either, despite what Ken Ham may say; It doesn't preach the free forgiveness of sins for the sake of Jesus Christ alone.
Thanks. Then no, falsifying evolution would not imply a creator. Nor does confirming evolution imply that there isn't a creator. Falsifying evolution would just leave scientists without a good model for the history of life.Hypothetical.
The thread on ERV evidence for evolution continues to sit idle as creationists avoid it.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/
All of the arguments I have seen boil down to an argument from ignorance, otherwise known as a God of the Gaps. People will try to argue against evolution, and in that sea of falsely created doubt, they will claim that God must have done it without providing a shred of evidence that God did anything.
Yep, the TOE is just another scientific theory. Sort of like; germ theory, and many others.
Whenever someone uses; "just a theory", it is a real good indicator, they know very little about science.
I have a little time right now so will respond.
Notice something. The viruses are still viruses! All life forms change. You are different from your parents but all of you are 100% homo sapiens.
The logic, really illogic, behind ERVs is Evolution is change. (Faulty premise as I just gave in the example with your parents.)
The ERVs have changed, in this case through duplication.
Follow the invisible, dataless, dotted lines that show they have ever been or ever will be anything but viruses.
But....there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever have been or ever will be anything but another of one of the countless variations of viruses. Or if there is any such evidence, please give data to show what it is. What kind of nonvirus are they turning into? Again, give data to prove your point.
The real evidence? As I said, they are still viruses!
Now it's your turn to answer some Qs. I referred to them above but you ignored them. I looked at your link. Look at mine. Help us poor "ignorant" fundies out and answer those Qs. Use actual scientific data, not logical fallacies and presumptions which are not supported by any real data. But you won't answer those Qs. Evo. fans always dodge them, usually by changing the subject, especially to the Bible which those Qs don't even reference.
Of course you have to be aware that just because something is called a "theory" that doesn't at all necessarily mean it is valid scientifically,
Well, golly gee, since you know, or so you seem to feel, tons about science, why don't you answer the Qs in the link I posted above? But you won't. You will evade doing so as all evo. fans always do. If you respond it will be with changes of subject most likely.
This post is hilarious.
Back to that game, avoid answering questions that are posed towards you and then muddy the waters by asking a bunch of your own questions. Typical evasion tactic, which we are accustomed to. Is it all a conspiracy of scientists, to disagree with your position?
So, since you must know more than all these Phd level biologists about their profession and biology, what are your thoughts on the position of Francis Collins, the devout Christian and former head of the human genome project in regards to the evidence that supports evolution and how it has strengthened over the years?
Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.
Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?
Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics
http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2
I gave an honest answer to the Qs and do not appreciate the implication that I am playing deceiving games. You're not going to distract me. If you can't answer those Qs, and of course you never will but will change the subject as you did above, then we really have nothing more to say to one another. Bye and blessings!
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?