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.
The way I see it, we were created by a spiritual God in a physical form. Both the spiritual and the physical is our experience of reality. Scientists explain the physical. Theologians explain the spiritual. We may have two separate explanations of our experience of reality - the physical by the scientists and the spiritual by the theologians- but each explanation is simply focusing on the two sides of the same "reality coin", assuming that both explanations are correct.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.
Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example: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.
Agreed.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.
Speculation.So i guess the leg bones in whales,
Speculation.the legs of snakes,
Our coccyx isn't exactly useless.our coccyx,
What about it?our wisdom teeth,
Possible mutation from the interbreeding of different species of rats (like a fertile donkey and a fertile horse producing a sterile mule).the eyes of blind mole rats
Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example:
Do you think macro-evolution at this level might have occurred?
The way I see it, we were created by a spiritual God in a physical form. Both the spiritual and the physical is our experience of reality. Scientists explain the physical. Theologians explain the spiritual. We may have two separate explanations of our experience of reality - the physical by the scientists and the spiritual by the theologians- but each explanation is simply focusing on the two sides of the same "reality coin", assuming that both explanations are correct.
Okay. But when I say "macro-evolution" I'm using it the way evolutionists use it, like a dinosaur becoming a bird for example:
[/color][/color]
That's not the way evolutionists use the term. Macroevolution is speciation and then the generation of higher taxa.
Because we are all related and the differences between human indivduals are relatively minor. Please explain why, if paternity tests work, while phylogenetic analysis does not.Why would paternity tests be needed if similar looking body structures were accurate?
Because we are all related and the differences between human indivduals are relatively minor. Please explain why, if paternity tests work, while phylogenetic analysis does not.
Also, have you come up with any way of generating a nested nierarchy without heredity?
Once again, I would like to point out that if you are correct about created "Kinds," then it should be relatively easy to identify them. Each Kind should form its own independent nested hierarchy that is unrelated to any other such nested hierarchy. Unfortunately, we do not find this in nature.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.
How exactly does Sin affect evolution? What mechanisms are in play? What is this "design" you are refering to?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.
Horizontal gene transfer between multicellular organisms and between uicellular and multicellular organisms is minor, though not insignificant. Such DNA usually can be identified, however. Movement between unicellular organisms is quite significant, and does impede phylogenetic analysis. Horizontal gene transfer between very eary life forms was likely very significant, which is why we really can't talk about a single common ancestor for all life on earth.It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.
Why would I be trying to do that?
What does God's boundaries have to do with it? I thought you claimed Sin was the big influence on evolutionary change now?I would seriously doubt such extensive changes. But I don't have a clue if God draws the same boundaries as I would.
I guess it wouldn't matter if I told you that dinosaurs were not lizards... would it?No, I don't think any creatures that truly fly could possibly be re-purposed lizards.
Does that include sugar gliders? http://lis.epfl.ch/research/projects/SelfDeployingMicroglider/Pics/sugarglider.jpgI don't believe that mammals made it off the ground through trial and error either.
That's good, have you seen these fossils?On the other hand, I am open to what I see yet try not to impress my preconceptions onto fossils we find.
Each Kind should form its own independent nested hierarchy that is unrelated to any other such nested hierarchy. Unfortunately, we do not find this in nature.
How exactly does Sin affect evolution?
What mechanisms are in play?
What is this "design" you are referring to?
Horizontal gene transfer between multicellular organisms and between uicellular and multicellular organisms is minor, though not insignificant. Such DNA usually can be identified, however. Movement between unicellular organisms is quite significant, and does impede phylogenetic analysis. Horizontal gene transfer between very eary life forms was likely very significant, which is why we really can't talk about a single common ancestor for all life on earth.
Like I said, it sounds valid. But if you don't have any authoritative support for it, I'll have to let it go as one person's reasonable opinion. Bible believing Christians laid much of the foundation for modern science. I'd try to quote at least one of them to support your thoughts.
Originally Posted by SkyWriting
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.Once again, I would like to point out that if you are correct about created "Kinds," then it should be relatively easy to identify them.
Sounds likely, though I wouldn't count on it.
It's been shown that bacteria are moving large amounts of DNA sideways across species screwing up traditional Evolutionary models.
If you say so.
But I don't have a clue if God draws the same boundaries as I would.
No, I don't think any creatures that truly fly could possibly be re-purposed lizards.
On the other hand, I am open to what I see yet try not to impress my preconceptions onto fossils we find.
Speculation.
Speculation.
Our coccyx isn't exactly useless.
Possible mutation from the interbreeding of different species of rats (like a fertile donkey and a fertile horse producing a sterile mule).
However, Bible believing Christians rejected creationism:"For nothing is so mischievous as the apotheosis of error; and it is a very plague of the understanding for vanity to become the object of veneration. Yet in this vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy on the first chapter of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings, seeking for the dead among the living; which also makes the inhibition and repression of it the more important, because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy but also a heretical religion. Very meet it is therefore that we be sober-minded, and give to faith that only which is faith's." Francis Bacon. Novum Organum LXV, 1620 Francis Bacon: Novum Organum (1620)In terms of spiritual vs physical, a number of Christians have stated the difference over the years, as well as a few agnostic scientists. Stephen J. Gould's NOMA (non-overlapping magisterium) says pretty much what Doveaman said."With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator's plans. " Pope John Paul II CIN - Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution For It Involves Conception of Man - Pope John Paul II Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences October 22, 1996 I would also refer you to Rev. James McCosh
The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 1890.
Not "speculation", conclusions. That whales still have leg bones is a holdover from land dwelling ancestors is not "speculation", but rather a conclusion or inference from the observation. ...
Oh no. If kinds are true, then they should be easy to identify because they must be completely distinct from other kinds, particularly on the DNA level. There must be a barrier that prevents DNA of one kind becoming DNA of another kind. Saying "I wouldn't count on it" is simply introducing an ad hoc hypothesis to avoid kinds being disproved....
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?