Evolutionary debate

[LifeToTheFullest!]

As long as the theory is consistent with their religious book and science, that's fine.
If we had no form of science and relied on the Bible alone for answer about nature, our understanding of nature would be very limited, and even skewed. But by recognizing that science and Biblical religion are two sides of the same coin, science can be used to confirm Biblical clams and the Bible can be used to support scientific claims.

Anyone who is seeking answers to the questions of reality and life, and is of the view that Biblical religion and science should be separated is indeed out of touch with reality. To separate the two sides of a coin is to render the coin useless. To separate science from Biblical religion is to render reality useless. We may examine each side of the same coin separately, but we cannot separate them from each other. They both support each other and are both needed to explain reality. It is only a skewed religion or a skewed science that would want to separate Biblical religion from science and still expect to have a grasp on reality.

False dichotomy much? Again, special pleading so as to assuage your cognitive dissonance, nothing more nothing less.

Why do you think your god waited until about 6-10,00 years ago to "reconstruct" A to G on chromosome 15 (gene mutation for expression of blue eyes)?

 

[SkyWriting]

False dichotomy much? Again, special pleading so as to assuage your cognitive dissonance, nothing more nothing less.

Why do you think your god waited until about 6-10,00 years ago to "reconstruct" A to G on chromosome 15 (gene mutation for expression of blue eyes)?

It sounds like your saying that Adam had blue eyes. It is not so written.
And guessing history using limited information is not a good practice. Fun, yes. But not a good way to establish facts.

 

[SkyWriting]

As long as the theory is consistent with their religious book and science, that's fine.
If we had no form of science and relied on the Bible alone for answer about nature, our understanding of nature would be very limited, and even skewed. But by recognizing that science and Biblical religion are two sides of the same coin, science can be used to confirm Biblical clams and the Bible can be used to support scientific claims.

Anyone who is seeking answers to the questions of reality and life, and is of the view that Biblical religion and science should be separated is indeed out of touch with reality. To separate the two sides of a coin is to render the coin useless. To separate science from Biblical religion is to render reality useless. We may examine each side of the same coin separately, but we cannot separate them from each other. They both support each other and are both needed to explain reality. It is only a skewed religion or a skewed science that would want to separate Biblical religion from science and still expect to have a grasp on reality.

Science is nothing more than the observation of God's Creation around us.
Nothing more.

 

[Hespera]

Even without the long geological time gaps God can still jump in. It is Evolution Theory that needs such huge gaps, not Reconstruction Theory. Reconstruction Theory simple seeks to explain the reason for the different "kinds" of life forms, each "kind" being a distinct and separate construction or reconstruction. The different features in your turtles suggest reconstruction:

You leave me a bit at a loss for words with your assertions of the utterly upsidedown backwerds and and senseless. "evolution theory NEEDS gaps"?


The "different features of the turtles" may well suggest "reconstruction" to he who is sufficiently suggestible. I very much doubt that you could give the latin names of any of the bones, not that the latin name is in itself important, but it shows who has or has not studied. You have any idea about the muscles, the origin, insertion or action? no?

So what those simple line drawings suggest to you is of no significance; especially combined with nonsense like that 'evolutionary theory needs huge gaps".

We observe every time that the theocreologists are stunningly ignorant but, they resist all efforts to educate them so, we can only assume they like it that way. Which they do; its the only way to sustain their illusions.

 

[SkyWriting]

Don't worry, I know what kind of time it is.

Yaaa, I didn't think so.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have often asked to see pictures of the actual fossils, after sneering at any drawings of them. In fact, you sneered at drawings in this very thread. The next predictable step, is for you to ask for the photos, then to claim they "look fake" or "look like plastic" to you.

Looks are deceiving. Actual connections are not dictated by looks.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7475963-11/#post55260478

 

[alexacker]

I read something in this topic that blew my mind!
Reconstruction theory was the name of the 'scientific' theory....
I have one question... Why do you accept anything scientific? I mean everything around us can be explained as 'Godidit'... Microevolution** could be God reconstructing all of living animals and plants one nucleotide at a time, by these standards.... I mean what would be the point of God doing this? You say you accept microevolution... Why if there already was this mechanism in place would God need to intervene???

**I hate that this term has been accepted by the scientific community but i use it for arguments sake

 

[Doveaman]

Science is nothing more than the observation of God's Creation around us.
Nothing more.

Not so sure what you mean by "observation".

Do you mean science is to "see" God's creation?

or do you mean science is to "experience" God's creation?

or do you mean science is to "study" God's creation?

The way I used it I meant to "experience" God's creation.

Our spiritual experience is on one side of the reality coin and our physical experience (science) is on the other side of the reality coin. The physical and the spiritual combined is our reality.

 

[Doveaman]

I read something in this topic that blew my mind!
Reconstruction theory was the name of the 'scientific' theory....
I have one question... Why do you accept anything scientific?

Because it's good for my health.

I mean everything around us can be explained as 'Godidit'...

That's because He did it.

Microevolution** could be God reconstructing all of living animals and plants one nucleotide at a time, by these standards.... I mean what would be the point of God doing this?

There is no point because God doesn't do it. I've never seen it. Have you?

You say you accept microevolution... Why if there already was this mechanism in place would God need to intervene???

I accept micro-evolution because it happens, but I've never seen it lead to macro-evolution. The macro-evolution part is all speculation, IMO. So I, too, can speculate that it was reconstruction. A snake being formed in an instant out of a piece of stick is historical evidence of reconstruction. I have evidence. Do you?

 

[alexacker]

Because it's good for my health.
Not the point i was making but i wouldnt expect anything more...
That's because He did it.
So rainbows and lightnings are the works of God and not physical phenomena?
There is no point because God doesn't do it. I've never seen it. Have you?
wait a minute ...above you said that he did everything...now you say he doesnt do microevolution?
And yes biologists have witnessed evolution both in small and large scale
I accept micro-evolution because it happens, but I've never seen it lead to macro-evolution. The macro-evolution part is all speculation, IMO. So I, too, can speculate that it was reconstruction. A snake being formed in an instant out of a piece of stick is historical evidence of reconstruction. I have evidence. Do you?

So all these lineages of fossils and the DNA similarities mean nothing to you eh?....
The stick-to-snake thingie is not reconstruction even by your standards. Its just pure magic.

Also one question more whats your take on vestigial organs in general?

 

[Split Rock]

Looks are deceiving. Actual connections are not dictated by looks.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7475963-11/#post55260478

I suppose you don't look like your father? If I sequenced your DNA, it wouldn't be very similar to your father's? If a paternity test works, then so does phylogenetic analysis.

 

[SkyWriting]

I suppose you don't look like your father? If I sequenced your DNA, it wouldn't be very similar to your father's? If a paternity test works, then so does phylogenetic analysis.

Why would paternity tests be needed if similar looking body structures were accurate?

I don't look like my father, though I do look like my 2 uncles.
My brother does not look like either of my parents or any known relatives.
I do have many "identical twins", or so many strangers have told me over the years in different parts of the country.

 

[SkyWriting]

...I accept micro-evolution because it happens, but I've never seen it lead to macro-evolution. The macro-evolution part is all speculation, IMO. So I, too, can speculate that it was reconstruction. A snake being formed in an instant out of a piece of stick is historical evidence of reconstruction. I have evidence. Do you?

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other. Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design. It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.

 

[SkyWriting]

I read something in this topic that blew my mind!
Reconstruction theory was the name of the 'scientific' theory....
I have one question... Why do you accept anything scientific? I mean everything around us can be explained as 'Godidit'... Microevolution** could be God reconstructing all of living animals and plants one nucleotide at a time, by these standards.... I mean what would be the point of God doing this? You say you accept microevolution... Why if there already was this mechanism in place would God need to intervene???

**I hate that this term has been accepted by the scientific community but i use it for arguments sake

Darwin memorized the verses below.

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a pennyd? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father.
30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not so sure what you mean by "observation".
Do you mean science is to "see" God's creation?
or do you mean science is to "experience" God's creation?
or do you mean science is to "study" God's creation?
The way I used it I meant to "experience" God's creation.
Our spiritual experience is on one side of the reality coin and our physical experience (science) is on the other side of the reality coin. The physical and the spiritual combined is our reality.

Sure, it sounds good. But what is the foundation for this statement?
A solid truth is not just something you came up with last week.

 

[SkyWriting]

...Also one question more whats your take on vestigial organs in general?

It's a very clever way of saying "We are too stupid to figure out why this is needed."

 

[USincognito]

Macro-evolution would be the micro-evolution of one Kind into another. As we don't know what the Kinds were, we can't prove macro-evolution one way or the other. Additionally, since the Fall of Man, all of creation is under the umbrella of Sin so the documented changes we see in biology may or may not be working according to design.

Ad hoc. Argument from ignorance. Ad Hoc.

It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.

Wrong. You misunderstood what the finding was. All metazoans are definately descended from an Urmetazoan. What has happened in unicellular organisms is horizontal gene transfer that hasn't happened in multicellular organisms.

 

[SkyWriting]

...You misunderstood what the finding was. All metazoans are definately descended from an Urmetazoan. What has happened in unicellular organisms is horizontal gene transfer that hasn't happened in multicellular organisms.

Sure. I must be reading it wrong.
File:Horizental-gene-transfer.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AGROBACTERIUM TUMEFACIENS AND INTERKINGDOM GENETIC EXCHANGE


Descent with modification has long been accepted as the framework within which the transmission of genetic determinants is best explained, at least in morphologically complex eukaryotes.
But now...

 

[alexacker]

It's a very clever way of saying "We are too stupid to figure out why this is needed."

So i guess the leg bones in whales, the legs of snakes, our coccyx, our wisdom teeth, the eyes of blind mole rats all have a secret function eh? :facepalm:

 

[Doveaman]

So all these lineages of fossils and the DNA similarities mean nothing to you eh?....

They do. They are evidence of Reconstruction.

For example, take a look again at my two friends here:

Based on these two observations, Evolution Theory infers (speculates) that the turtle above evolved into the turtle below through a veeeeeery slow process of micro-evolution. I consider that to be a reasonable explanation, but it’s not the only explanation.

On the other hand, Reconstruction theory infers (speculates) that the turtle below is an entirely new, and distinct and separate, reconstruction of the turtle above. No evolution involved.

Based on the historical evidence recorded in Genesis this reconstruction would have occurred around the same time that all modern forms of life were constructed and reconstructed.

The stick-to-snake thingie is not reconstruction even by your standards. Its just pure magic.

Call it magic if you like, but its performance did rearrange the molecular structure of the stick and made it into a snake. This historical evidence of instant rearrangement tells us that the veeeeeery slow process of evolution is not necessary.

Also one question more whats your take on vestigial organs in general?

Well, on the one hand, I don’t think scientists have yet figured out what many of those organs were/are for. They may have a function but scientists haven’t figured out yet what that function was/is.

On the other hand, evolution on a micro level may also offer an answer.

The historical evidence recorded in Genesis tells us that all modern life forms evolved at the micro level from the few life forms constructed in Genesis. The bird family, for example, would have consisted of a few different species of birds that could interbreed among themselves to produce the different species of birds we see today.

We might expect that as different species of birds interbred among themselves that the eventual offspring would be biologically different from its parents (like a fertile donkey and a fertile horse producing a sterile mule). And we might expect over time that excessive interbreeding among the different species of birds might eventually produce a hybrid offspring like the Emu with functionless wings which evolutionists now consider to be vestigial organs.