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.
gluadys said:No, we can't. You are claiming that your belief about a few chapters in Genesis is God's truth. We do not have consensus on that, so we do not have consensus on the relationship of science to God's truth.
TheBear said:Are you aware that evolutionary biology is the basis for many agricultural improvements? Did you know that evolutionary principles were used to produce some of our best vaccines? Will you be keeping up with all the biotechnology and pharmaceutical advancements based on evolutionary biology?
Micaiah said:Darwin himself acknowledge the big leap of faith required to extrapolate from the small variations he saw within species to the notion that we evolved from a single celled animal.
Micaiah said:Why amazing? You gave evidence which you apparently find convincing. I don't, and I pointed out why.
Micaiah said:I think you are being very dogmatic about something that is far from certain. Show me how genetic change we witness today proves 'slime to scientist' evolution.
Through the independent nested hierarchy of the fossil record and DNA evidence along with the pattern of ERV insertions in the human DNA.
Micaiah said:Thanks Notto. It sounds to me like you have some understanding of some of the theories regarding genetic change.
This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist.
I'd need to accept your judgement by faith.
Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.
Maybe you could make an attempt to put the explanation in more understandable terms.
I'm interested to hear from Bear. He has mentioned some examples in agriculture that prove slime to scientist evolution beyond a shadow of doubt.
I have a passing interest in agriculture. As a teenager I worked on a farm for several years before embarking on studies. Thanks Bear. Lets hear it in your own words.
Micaiah said:This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist. I'd need to accept your judgement by faith. Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.
Crusadar said:notto: Do you trust any science?
Operational science, of course, - origin science (i.e. mud to man evolution) a firm no. You do realize that there is a difference between knowing how something works and how it originated don't you.
Through the independent nested hierarchy of the fossil record and DNA evidence along with the pattern of ERV insertions in the human DNA.
This doesn't mean a lot to me. If I were to accept it as true, I'd need to rely on your expertise as a scientist. I'd need to accept your judgement by faith. Given that scientists are regulary changing their minds about what happened and why it happened, it is hard to have a lot of confidence in what they assert.
Where Do We Come From?: The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein, Naoyuki Takahata
human evolution explanation at its best
This is simply the best book i've found on human evolution. The subtitle is "The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent", don't be put off if you don't have a degree in biochemistry. Unlike most other technical and scientifically sophisticated books, in this one, the author holds your hand. He does it very well, introducing binominal and poisson distribution analysis both in the text and in appendices, for example. You are aware of his careful setting up the pieces that you need in order to understand the take home message of each chapter, and you are grateful, even if you already know the material, for the 'nice' way he does it. I finished the book wishing he would rewrite many biology and engineering textbooks i have been subjected to over the years by authors who assumed if you didn't know exactly what you were reading, then you shouldn't have bought and tried to read his book in the first place. For this characteristic alone the book is deeply and joyfully to be praised.
Micaiah said:Let's let Notto answer for himself. I'd like him to demonstrate his undertanding with an explanation in his own plain and simple words. Not a cut and paste or link. As one who is not an expert in this field, I'd appreciate the explanation.
Remember this is something that he is certain about. I assume he has a solid argument on which he bases his belief about origins.
In addition, Notto could tell us the branch of science in which he is qualified. I wasn't aware that he was an expert in genetics. From what I can gather, his statements relate to research that is in its infancy.
Crusadar said:notto said: Your assumptions on trusting operational science are no different than the assumptions for 'origins' science.
Hardly, have you ever seen anyone design a plane or build a spacecraft on the basis of evolutionary science? I would hope not. I am willing to bet that no engineer works on the evolutionary formula of no design and if he does he would pretty much be unemployed!
Crusadar said:notto said: Engineers do work using the unproven assumption of uniformitarianism.
No they dont. It is natural laws in the here and now that are taken into consideration, not speculations on whether or not they will change or have ever changed. What I was pointing out was that the design aspect of any machine time and again is demonstrated in the amount of specified information that is applied. This is something that is not derivable from natural laws.
In fact the information applied specifies the purpose this is seen in all biology. This is what I was after, that natural laws alone produces no plane nor spacecraft and yet evolutionists dare say something which is much more complex as that of a bacterium or a bird are the product of nature alone?
You see notto in the real world where real science operates, the time required to create and design any given purposeful machine from basic raw substances is inversely proportionate to the amount of creativity in the form of information applied. So long periods of time are not necessary when one already knows what it is that one wants to design (and I have no doubt God who is omniscient did know what He wanted).
Simply put, the time required to create or design a machine is flexible, where the time factor decreases as the amount of information increases - where there is little or no information applied there is low tech or no tech.
rmwilliamsll said:can someone please tell me what this means?
it makes no sense to me.
...
notto said:I think it means that scientists and engineers expect things to happen the same way tommorrow as they did yesterday and the day before. After all, it has proven to be a pretty good assumption.
What do they call that again?
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?