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.
Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore the correct definition to use is that of "scientific theory".That is the definition of a "scientific theory".
I gave the definition of Theory, which is what evolution is, a theory.
Reading comprehension, try it and apply it before you go bashing people around with your ignorance. Maybe even try a little self control and use less aggressive tones to get your point across.
I'm not aware of any part of evolutionary theory that claims that a living organism will mutate into another organism. Can you tell me where you got that idea?"But it isn't just your own cells that mutate that drives evolution"
My cells are my cells and will die when I die, Because my cells will die I will never mutate into another being.
The only time death stops evolution is if the organism died without producing any offspring. Otherwise death of one organism is no barrier to evolution.My parents never mutated and there parents never mutated, death stops evolution period.
No. I have no idea where you got that idea. If it were true, the only way to convict someone of say murder, would be to have eyewitnesses, extremely reliable eyewitnesses at that.In science in order to prove anything you have to witness it right? So you can study it right?
In fact, we most certainly have witnessed evolution both in the field and in the lab.You, nor any one has ever witnessed evolution, so by your own science understanding and laws evolution is a lie because you can not see it, as seeing is believing..
Evolution is a scientific theory, therefore the correct definition to use is that of "scientific theory".
And that's pretty hypocritical of you, to talk about ME using self-control and being less aggressive while just one sentence earlier calling me ignorant.
You said lots of things originate from outside of the Bible and yes that is true. Where the Bible is silent, general revelation can possibly reveal truths; however, where scripture is not silent (the origination of life, for example), special revelation (God's word) is true.Do you have anything to say regarding my post that you quoted?
And, as been said probably thousands of times, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
The very fact that you state "evolution is just a theory" shows that you do not understand the scientific use of the term.No, evolution is not scientific theory. Read the definition again of scientific theory:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."
Evolution cannot be observed or used in experimentation since it cannot be done in the first place even. Evolution is just a theory. It cannot be proven, observed, or done in experimentation.
And they didn't start out with such diversity. Differing melanin levels in human skin are an evolutionary adaptation to the environment.A human, has only ever begotten humans. Some are black, some are white, some are yellow, but they are all humans none the less.
Evolution doesn't claim otherwise. In fact, a dog giving birth to a cat would be a fatal blow to evolutionary theory.A dog, has only ever begotten another dog. There may be different species (German Shepard/Husky) but they are all still dogs.
No dog has ever begotten something that was not a dog.
No monkey has ever begotten something that was not a monkey.
I'm not aware of any scientist that has tried to prove that a dog will give birth to a cat or some such claim. Do you have a link?No scientist can prove otherwise, and any that has tried has been found a fraud.
Including you?Evolution is just a theory and has no facts to support it, from anyone who is rational and stands on a non bias stance. For those that really try as hard as they can (bias), of course they can find reason for anything regardless of how wrong they are.
So you believe in the literalness of scripture do you? In that case:This is from a secular point of view.
From a Christian point of view, believing in the bible will automatically place you in the "YEC" category (if one has to place labels). God literally made everything in six 24 hour days. The Hebrew wording (context/grammar) forces one to agree to this, or remain in denial. You will either believe in the bible or you wont, from the Christian view point. And we all know what happens when one doesn't believe in scripture.
Because you are assuming a lack level of knowledge and information about creation vs evolution on my part simply because I disagree with you. That is insulting.I never insulted you. Stating someone is ignorant is not being aggressive.
Ignorance - "lack of knowledge or information."
I fail to see how this is an insult.
I didn't dismiss you as unintelligent nor did I tell you to butt out of the conversation.I'll have you know, I am extremely ignorant as a car mechanic. I simply just do not have the knowledge to work on one. Hardly an insult.
You came out of the woodwork, dismissed me as unintelligent, and informed me to just butt out of this thread.
Except that you have not demonstrated any error on my part with anything resembling facts and evidence. And my demeanor is fine thank you. Most people tend to get miffed when thy are insulted.However, with the "lack of knowledge or information" that you have, I informed you of the error you made and confronted you on your demeanor.
Again, you assumed a lack of knowledge on my part and called me ignorant solely because I disagree with you. THAT is insulting.If you take ignorance as an insult, are you insulted about going to college, universities, any schools? They teach you and I things we are ignorant on. If it is an insult to you, I suppose I could be less fancy and just say that you "lack the knowledge" about this subject.
And when God's Word contradicts God's Fingerprints? Then what?You said lots of things originate from outside of the Bible and yes that is true. Where the Bible is silent, general revelation can possibly reveal truths; however, where scripture is not silent (the origination of life, for example), special revelation (God's word) is true.
So you're claiming that evolution is NOT both a fact and a theory? That means either a) animals do not change (evolve) over time or;You also said that evolution has been said to be both a fact and a theory thousands of times. I'm sure allah has been said to be the only true God millions or billions times, but does not make it any more true than evolution.
Can you find the verse where this exists?And when God's Word contradicts God's Fingerprints? Then what?
(Macro)evolution from a universal common ancestor is a myth. What has been observed (every time scientists try to prove evolution is true) is that created kinds will adapt to environmental pressures (you're familiar with the finches of the Galapagos)... but they remain within their created kind. This sometimes is called adaptation or microevolution for those with an evolutionary bias.So you're claiming that evolution is NOT both a fact and a theory? That means either a) animals do not change (evolve) over time or;
b) The theory of evolution doesn't meet the standard definition of a theory (being supported by a significant amount of evidence).
Which is it?
Yes, I've read this before from him and agree evolution is well-rationalized and there are volumes of research on it. Shall I then provide you with quotes from him as to why he still believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and how he has demonstrated through his research clear morphological gaps in the fossil record between homo (humans) and pithecus (apes) that have yet to ever be demonstrated by any fossil as being bridged by way of a supposed transitional (ie. that humans have always been human and apes have always been ape)? I'm sure you've already seen these as well.I offer you the words of of Creation biologist Dr. Todd Wood on the status of evolutionary theory:
"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."
It is the Bible that is wrong. The Old Testament was written by Hebrew priest for an Israelite audience. It was pseudo-biographical and of the age. There is evidence in the Genesis narrative itself that suggests that Adam and Eve materialized or incarnate from heaven onto a previously populated world.Evolution is a proven fact if you believe otherwise please don't reply. (Not being rude just not worth the argument if we disagree on the basics)
Since the bible mentions nothing of this process it is logical to conclude that either the bible is false (obviously we dont pick this one) or the bible was written with by people thousands of years ago and hence is written to match the understanding of the day - God left out the complicated methods such as evolution. What I just explained is my understanding of theistic evolution, however my major issue is that the bible specifically calls adam the first human, and says he was made after the animals. Which is obviously disproved by evolution (humans and apes evolved from shared ancestors at the same time and the first humans were in middle Africa- mitochondrial eve). Now the bible is outright incorrect, which cannot be the case. So as a scientific christian how can you believe the Bible is true and still believe in evolution? Also if evolution was God's method to create the world why did he allow 7 near planetary extinctions where 99% of life on earth died? Also if you believe He created the world via evolution and personally designed us later then what are all the transitional fossils?
And when 2 Timothy was written it wasn't scripture, the church made it scripture. They had a vested interest in doing so.The author of II Timothy does not spell out for us exactly what he means by "inspired". "Inspired" does not necessarily mean "dictated".
On II Peter 1:20-21: I agree that the Old Testament prophets were speaking messages that God revealed to them. Note that prophecy is not the only kind of literature contained in the Old Testament.
On avoiding private interpretation: I agree that it is important to listen to the collected wisdom of the church when interpreting prophecy. I've seen people go off in crazy directions when they failed to do this.
Why would I need a verse for that?Can you find the verse where this exists?
Define "kind".(Macro)evolution from a universal common ancestor is a myth. What has been observed (every time scientists try to prove evolution is true) is that created kinds will adapt to environmental pressures (you're familiar with the finches of the Galapagos)... but they remain within their created kind.
So 1+1=2 but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 can never equal 10?This sometimes is called adaptation or microevolution for those with an evolutionary bias.
So you agree that evolution is both a fact and a theory?Yes, I've read this before from him and agree evolution is well-rationalized and there are volumes of research on it. Shall I then provide you with quotes from him as to why he still believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and how he has demonstrated through his research clear morphological gaps in the fossil record between homo (humans) and pithecus (apes) that have yet to ever be demonstrated by any fossil as being bridged by way of a supposed transitional (ie. that humans have always been human and apes have always been ape)? I'm sure you've already seen these as well.
It was your argument that God's word contradicts your perception of history... If you can find a verse that supports your perception of history then please provide and we can chat about.Why would I need a verse for that?
The Bible does not define kind with a detailed explanation; however, creationist scientists are currently working to identify these classifications of current living organisms in a branch of study called baraminology (can be Googled).Define "kind".
In the abstract concept of numbers, yes. In what has been observed as is relates to biological life forms, no. Finches remain finches, e.coli remains e.coli, moths remain moths, etc...So 1+1=2 but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 can never equal 10?
I believe [macro]evolution is a false 'fact', and a largely unsupported 'theory'... if you're looking for me to explicitly use the terms of fact and theory in a response. We have to be clear on our terms here because people say "evolution" but evolution just means change over time. When people think of evolution; however, unless they have a college degree in some relevant field such as biology, paleontology, etc..., most generalize "evolution" to mean macroevolution - things like humans evolving from apes, but then we're scolded and told it's NOT apes, it was an ape-like creature, but yet the evolution march is almost always illustrated with an ape on the far left........ sooooo, it seems there's a lot of confusion and assumptions within historical sciences in general... As such, seems best to just stick with what God's word says.So you agree that evolution is both a fact and a theory?
God's fingerprints don't support your interpretation of the Bible.It was your argument that God's word contradicts your perception of history... If you can find a verse that supports your perception of history then please provide and we can chat about.
If you can't define "kind" then why should I believe that your assertion that all organisms will remain within their created "kind"?The Bible does not define kind with a detailed explanation; however, creationist scientists are currently working to identify these classifications of current living organisms in a branch of study called baraminology (can be Googled).
Why not? If enough new information is received (via mutation, genetic drift, etc.), what prevents a new species from arising?In the abstract concept of numbers, yes. In what has been observed as is relates to biological life forms, no.
Of course they do. Evolution doesn't claim otherwise. You aren't one of those people who think that evolution proposes that a dog will give birth to a cat are you?Finches remain finches, e.coli remains e.coli, moths remain moths, etc...
The theory of evolution makes no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro is just micro over a long period of time.I believe [macro]evolution is a false 'fact', and a largely unsupported 'theory'... if you're looking for me to explicitly use the terms of fact and theory in a response.
Except that God's Word is not, and was never meant to be, a science book.We have to be clear on our terms here because people say "evolution" but evolution just means change over time. When people think of evolution; however, unless they have a college degree in some relevant field such as biology, paleontology, etc..., most generalize "evolution" to mean macroevolution - things like humans evolving from apes, but then we're scolded and told it's NOT apes, it was an ape-like creature, but yet the evolution march is almost always illustrated with an ape on the far left........ sooooo, it seems there's a lot of confusion and assumptions within historical sciences in general... As such, seems best to just stick with what God's word says.
That is why human ancestors aren't called humans, but home erectus, homo habilis, Neaderthals, and the like.As T. Wood's research shows, humans appear to have always been humans, but our perception that humans as we see ourselves today have always looked exactly the way we do now, may not be necessarily true as it relates to Adam & Eve and their immediate descendants.
Yes, that's one of the distinctions recognized in homo erectus that distinguishes them from homo habilisWhat can be discerned thus far is that from the earliest fossils of humans is that we have always walked upright,
a distinctive feature of homo habilis,always been able to make and create things
Your evidence for this? This is a hotly contested question in science right now so I'm wondering what scientific evidence brought you to this conclusion.and have always been capable of speech.
Inference is not evidence. What evidence led you to infer this? Bible verse interpretation or something less subjective.This seems reasonable as this can all be inferred from what we're told in the Bible where Adam was created, he named the animals that were created (then), and he worked in the garden where God placed him.
A human, has only ever begotten humans. Some are black, some are white, some are yellow, but they are all humans none the less.
A dog, has only ever begotten another dog. There may be different species (German Shepard/Husky) but they are all still dogs.
No dog has ever begotten something that was not a dog.
No monkey has ever begotten something that was not a monkey.
Sounds like you're the type that believes there is no perspicuity to scripture thus when it says day it cannot mean a day (though cited as days in Exodus 20:11 in the context of defining the 4th commandment)... so, you'll obviously continue to disagree on this, thus we'll move on.God's fingerprints don't support your interpretation of the Bible.
If you can't define "kind" then why should I believe that your assertion that all organisms will remain within their created "kind"?
Because evidence does not support, thus it is widely imagined through the biased interpretation of "transitional" fossils. But as your logic just invalidated, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1... = 10 suggests that there should be many small incremental changes along the way... but even in the loose interpretations of transitional fossils by secular scientists, such is not found... hence the hypothesis of PE (Punctuated Equilibrium) in an attempt to explain the lack of transitions.Why not? If enough new information is received (via mutation, genetic drift, etc.), what prevents a new species from arising?
Macroevolution asserts that over a very long period of time that exactly the kind of thing you are describing will happen... that the new thing being born will be so far removed from it's original species that it will no longer be compatible and become its own species.Of course they do. Evolution doesn't claim otherwise. You aren't one of those people who think that evolution proposes that a dog will give birth to a cat are you?
The theory doesn't, but unequivocal support only exists for micro-evolution.The theory of evolution makes no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro is just micro over a long period of time.
Right, it has upstaged limited human explanations through naturalistic assumptions by giving us the truth from the One who was there, from whom all things were made. But, to your point, it IS NOT a science book... so nobody really (emphasis) knows (except God) the specifics of what happened except to the extent that 'guardrail-level' details are given by the Bible. God said He created light and separated it from darkness on day 1... so does that mean photons coming from a star? Maybe, maybe not. We may not have the answer of what this looked like until we get to the other side of heaven. Just because I cannot ascribe a naturalistic cause for how the light was created and separated from the darkness doesn't mean it didn't happen.Except that God's Word is not, and was never meant to be, a science book.
This is a just a labeling convention.That is why human ancestors aren't called humans, but home erectus, homo habilis, Neaderthals, and the like.
Some very broad generalizations happening within science here... we find a few skeletons (really, there are not millions of fossilized humans being found) and we generalize to say it describes ALL people at some 'stage of evolution'... like me finding a pen on the floor and saying it is representative of all pens from a particular era of manufacturing, when it's just a pen found in a particular location, in which there are many varieties of the pen 'kind' that exist all at the same general time.Yes, that's one of the distinctions recognized in homo erectus that distinguishes them from homo habilis
a distinctive feature of homo habilis,
I simply mean the physical structures needed to create speech do not appear to be absent (mouth, teeth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs, brain). Also, who cares what is hotly contested in science? God created the first man on day 6 and somewhere along the way, he named the animals. We can infer Adam spoke - it's probably a safe inference. What Christian here (or anywhere) is really going to adamantly insist the Bible is inadequate as evidence for the truth about our past? Nobody is arguing against me when they argue against the Bible, and nobody will have to answer to me when they stand in judgment.Your evidence for this? This is a hotly contested question in science right now so I'm wondering what scientific evidence brought you to this conclusion.
You're the one who doesn't believe God's word is true regarding creation... if I made an inference and believe, in general, that evidence supports this then that's fine. Who's going to argue that, the scientist tripping over his hubris as he tries to point out the flaws of my thinking because it violates his naturalistic / uniformitarianistic assumptions about the past? Is my inference really the most important issue here?Inference is not evidence. What evidence led you to infer this? Bible verse interpretation or something less subjective.
Typical. Refuse to define your terms then act as if I did something wrong or unreasonable.Sounds like you're the type that believes there is no perspicuity to scripture thus when it says day it cannot mean a day (though cited as days in Exodus 20:11 in the context of defining the 4th commandment)... so, you'll obviously continue to disagree on this, thus we'll move on.
There are many, MANY fossils showing incremental changes. The fossil evidence of horse evolution is a great example of this.Because evidence does not support, thus it is widely imagined through the biased interpretation of "transitional" fossils. But as your logic just invalidated, 1 + 1 + 1 + 1... = 10 suggests that there should be many small incremental changes along the way... but even in the loose interpretations of transitional fossils by secular scientists, such is not found... hence the hypothesis of PE (Punctuated Equilibrium) in an attempt to explain the lack of transitions.
No, it most certainly does not. No version of evolutionary theory posits that an existing species will evolve into another existing species.Macroevolution asserts that over a very long period of time that exactly the kind of thing you are describing will happen...
What makes you think that the inability to mate with the parent species is the only definition of species?that the new thing being born will be so far removed from it's original species that it will no longer be compatible and become its own species.
29+ Evidences for MacroevolutionThe theory doesn't, but unequivocal support only exists for micro-evolution.
Part of the problem with a literalist interpretation of creation is that it makes God a deceiver. If the light from stars that we see (which we can examine and test) did not originate at the star (it couldn't to get here across the distances involved), then what we see in the light, is a lie.Right, it has upstaged limited human explanations through naturalistic assumptions by giving us the truth from the One who was there, from whom all things were made. But, to your point, it IS NOT a science book... so nobody really (emphasis) knows (except God) the specifics of what happened except to the extent that 'guardrail-level' details are given by the Bible. God said He created light and separated it from darkness on day 1... so does that mean photons coming from a star? Maybe, maybe not. We may not have the answer of what this looked like until we get to the other side of heaven. Just because I cannot ascribe a naturalistic cause for how the light was created and separated from the darkness doesn't mean it didn't happen.
To extend your argument, that means that the light the plants created on day 3 needed to survive was just like sunlight, but it wasn't sunlight?Think about this for a moment: the usual argument is that the days of creation couldn't be days because the sun didn't even exist until day 4, right? So why does that same assumption not get extended to day 1? Follow me here... if light was created on day 1, the naturalistic explanation is that a sun MUST also exist on day 1, thus negating the day 4 argument that a sun must exist to have mornings and evenings. Oh, and the text talking about the greater light to rule the day on day 4.... that could have just been talking about ANY star, anywhere in the cosmos. Now, I don't believe naturalistic explanations are needed to believe that Genesis is true... just showing the error of the argument against Genesis. So, back to the beginning: can there be light without a physical sun existing? If God says so, then who am I to deny that truth? Am I hurting God or only hurting myself by denying the truth of His word? It is apparent the Hebrews of the time recognized a Sabbath 1x/week, so that should give some insight.
Of course it is a labeling convention. Just like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, and Remingtonocetus are just "labling conventions" for various whale ancestors.This is a just a labeling convention.
Actually, that's not at all how it works. Recent evidence demonstrates that two human ancestors, Homo erectus and neanderthals, lived at the same time as modern homo sapiens.Some very broad generalizations happening within science here... we find a few skeletons (really, there are not millions of fossilized humans being found) and we generalize to say it describes ALL people at some 'stage of evolution'... like me finding a pen on the floor and saying it is representative of all pens from a particular era of manufacturing, when it's just a pen found in a particular location, in which there are many varieties of the pen 'kind' that exist all at the same general time.
Lots of species have mouths, teeth, tongues, vocal cords, lungs, and brains yet aren't capable of speech.I simply mean the physical structures needed to create speech do not appear to be absent (mouth, teeth, tongue, vocal cords, lungs, brain).
Anyone that wants to argue against science?Also, who cares what is hotly contested in science?
If you're going to insist that the universe is no more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that there was a worldwide flood that covered the earth in water only 4,000 years ago in spite of the vast amount of evidence God left behind to the contrary, then your inference (interpretation) is a vital importance.God created the first man on day 6 and somewhere along the way, he named the animals. We can infer Adam spoke - it's probably a safe inference. What Christian here (or anywhere) is really going to adamantly insist the Bible is inadequate as evidence for the truth about our past? Nobody is arguing against me when they argue against the Bible, and nobody will have to answer to me when they stand in judgment.
You're the one who doesn't believe God's word is true regarding creation... if I made an inference and believe, in general, that evidence supports this then that's fine. Who's going to argue that, the scientist tripping over his hubris as he tries to point out the flaws of my thinking because it violates his naturalistic / uniformitarianistic assumptions about the past? Is my inference really the most important issue here?
You've done nothing wrong - all I can offer is was can be discerned from what the Bible gives and what is being developed as a 'kind' within the study of baraminology today. But as you've demonstrated in your responses, it looks like I just happened to guess right as you view scripture through a scientific lens, accepting what Darwin and others would postulate over what the one who made you has said.Typical. Refuse to define your terms then act as if I did something wrong or unreasonable.
Here we go into the "scientific evidence" rant..... So, first, "Many" is 1) ambiguous, and 2) based on perception - it's a qualitative opinion. There are estimated to literally be billions of fossils with millions having been cataloged. By in large fossils abruptly show up in the fossil record, by in large they appear to have gone extinct; and.... by in large they remain the same from 1st appearance to the point of apparent extinction - that's what's generally seen - by all Paleontologists. Under Darwinian theory... there should literally be millions of transitionals, but there aren't (again, PE). There are a few postulated transitionals most famously around the land-animal-to-whale, fish-to-land-animal, and dinosaur-to-bird. None of these unequivocally demonstrate/prove that a gradual transition took place.There are many, MANY fossils showing incremental changes. The fossil evidence of horse evolution is a great example of this.
Continuing....that is exactly what the tree of life posits - that's why there is a branching out toward the top with a common ancestor at the bottom:No, it most certainly does not. No version of evolutionary theory posits that an existing species will evolve into another existing species.
Who said it was the only definition of species? Now inventing new arguments along the way.... hooray.What makes you think that the inability to mate with the parent species is the only definition of species?
Oh good, "the problem with believing the bible is because if you measure the speed of light as a constant through the vacuum of space, and the distance determined using red shift of distant starts... and God could have only kept plants alive on day 3 if there is actual sunlight because sunlight is the sustainer of all plants, not God..." you're still missing it. No, God is not a deceiver - of course not. You and I know better than that. God said not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil... yet there WAS deception in the garden. God also said He created everything in 6 days... yet there IS deception today. We deceive ourselves when we apply our limited understanding to a universe we did not create, and assert our own vain ideas over what God, the Creator, has told us.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Part of the problem with a literalist interpretation of creation is that it makes God a deceiver. If the light from stars that we see (which we can examine and test) did not originate at the star (it couldn't to get here across the distances involved), then what we see in the light, is a lie.
To extend your argument, that means that the light the plants created on day 3 needed to survive was just like sunlight, but it wasn't sunlight?
Good, so if I call my arms legs, do I have 4 legs? NO. I still just have 2 legs, so just because we label things in certain ways doesn't make it what we label it. We can label appendages different things and label fossils as transitionals based upon our perceptions and measurements and morphology, DNA similarities, etc... but doesn't make it so.Of course it is a labeling convention. Just like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, and Remingtonocetus are just "labling conventions" for various whale ancestors.
Ooh, more "evidence"...all within the past 6 - 10 thousand years : ) How's that sound?Actually, that's not at all how it works. Recent evidence demonstrates that two human ancestors, Homo erectus and neanderthals, lived at the same time as modern homo sapiens.
All I wanted to indicate was that the physical structures were there. Now you're just arguing to argue, maybe go argue with someone who would be interested in human interpretations of things they also never saw.Lots of species have mouths, teeth, tongues, vocal cords, lungs, and brains yet aren't capable of speech.
Yes. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Keep running down this road, go faster, see how fast you can go - you're doing great!!Anyone that wants to argue against science?
God did leave behind vast amounts of evidence, but most scientists only think one-dimensionally about history and that is to base it upon what is currently measurable/observable here in the present (uniformitarianism).If you're going to insist that the universe is no more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old and that there was a worldwide flood that covered the earth in water only 4,000 years ago in spite of the vast amount of evidence God left behind to the contrary, then your inference (interpretation) is a vital importance.
Since you don't seem to want to discuss actual evidence, I only have two questions for you. Answer them if you wish.You've done nothing wrong - all I can offer is was can be discerned from what the Bible gives and what is being developed as a 'kind' within the study of baraminology today. But as you've demonstrated in your responses, it looks like I just happened to guess right as you view scripture through a scientific lens, accepting what Darwin and others would postulate over what the one who made you has said.
Here we go into the "scientific evidence" rant..... So, first, "Many" is 1) ambiguous, and 2) based on perception - it's a qualitative opinion. There are estimated to literally be billions of fossils with millions having been cataloged. By in large fossils abruptly show up in the fossil record, by in large they appear to have gone extinct; and.... by in large they remain the same from 1st appearance to the point of apparent extinction - that's what's generally seen - by all Paleontologists. Under Darwinian theory... there should literally be millions of transitionals, but there aren't (again, PE). There are a few postulated transitionals most famously around the land-animal-to-whale, fish-to-land-animal, and dinosaur-to-bird. None of these unequivocally demonstrate/prove that a gradual transition took place.
Continuing....that is exactly what the tree of life posits - that's why there is a branching out toward the top with a common ancestor at the bottom:
What is macroevolution?
Who or what is LUCA? | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Who said it was the only definition of species? Now inventing new arguments along the way.... hooray.
Oh good, "the problem with believing the bible is because if you measure the speed of light as a constant through the vacuum of space, and the distance determined using red shift of distant starts... and God could have only kept plants alive on day 3 if there is actual sunlight because sunlight is the sustainer of all plants, not God..." you're still missing it. No, God is not a deceiver - of course not. You and I know better than that. God said not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil... yet there WAS deception in the garden. God also said He created everything in 6 days... yet there IS deception today. We deceive ourselves when we apply our limited understanding to a universe we did not create, and assert our own vain ideas over what God, the Creator, has told us.
Good, so if I call my arms legs, do I have 4 legs? NO. I still just have 2 legs, so just because we label things in certain ways doesn't make it what we label it. We can label appendages different things and label fossils as transitionals based upon our perceptions and measurements and morphology, DNA similarities, etc... but doesn't make it so.
Ooh, more "evidence"...all within the past 6 - 10 thousand years : ) How's that sound?
All I wanted to indicate was that the physical structures were there. Now you're just arguing to argue, maybe go argue with someone who would be interested in human interpretations of things they also never saw.
Yes. The wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Keep running down this road, go faster, see how fast you can go - you're doing great!!
God did leave behind vast amounts of evidence, but most scientists only think one-dimensionally about history and that is to base it upon what is currently measurable/observable here in the present (uniformitarianism).
Like a human being, a creation from God, if you measure the rate of growth from say age 30 to 31 and try to extend that rate back to the beginning when there would have been only 1 cell, you're going to get a much older age than they really are because you need to factor in that before they were born they were growing at a very rapid rate and after they were born they continued to grow rapidly, but that rate of growth slowed down until it virtually became stagnant. No scientist was there in the beginning for creation, they missed it all, and now they're applying all of their methods of research, instruments, measurements, mathematical models, etc... after it's all happened, done and over with. I'm not saying this is exactly what happened as an analogy, but I hope it illustrates how limited our knowledge and assumptions are. So now in their arrogance, scientists say the Bible is wrong - or a myth (66% at least)... the others believe in God, but reinterpret the text to reconcile with what they believe their man-made instruments, labels, assumptions, and conventions tell them. I'll just give a weak-hearted "meh" and continue on believing God's word, thank you very much.
If it will perhaps give you satisfaction, imagine God scolding me when I get to heaven that I should have believed His word less and instead believed the philosophers of my day and their view of His creation as believing their interpretations would have brought Him more glory.
Unless you have a new angle to present other than reciting to me what scientists assert, I think we've run this one to conclusion. Best regards and God bless -
The thing is...I would not look to a fossil at all, as evidence for a transitional form, nor would I try comparing similarities in DNA as evidence for ancestry. The reason for this is that from what the Bible tells us where God created life on days 3, 5, and 6 and each was to multiply according to their kind, this does not negate similar features across different kinds (morphology), nor what is known within science with the existence of DNA as a building block of life negate the idea of similar building blocks to make similar features... if I have legs and cats have legs, our similarities in DNA fit with God having created both just as well as assuming there is a common ancestor waaaay back. Put another way, it would be obtuse to think God would use either completely different building blocks in different created kinds or that the DNA 'programming' should be drastically different yet yield similar body parts for lack of a better way of putting it. So, since similarities in morphology and DNA is not mutually exclusive to the evolutionary paradigm, I would not use any of those criteria effective for proving evolution.Since you don't seem to want to discuss actual evidence, I only have two questions for you. Answer them if you wish.
1. What would a transitional fossil need to look like for you to accept it as a transitional fossil?
This is mental splitting (all or none, black and white... thinking in absolutes) and is again a psychological phenomenon, often used as a defense mechanism. First clue to pick up on here is this is a 'supernatural' meeting as this is between Satan and Jesus (Satan is a supernatural being). Jesus was taken up to a high place and shown the kingdoms of the earth... we're not left with the impression they spent days hiking up a mountain together sharing in fellowship and reminiscing about the good ol' days when they were once in heaven together. If you read many of the commentaries on this verse, most make the effort to point out this and the fact that Satan was trying to tempt Jesus. How can Satan offer all the kingdoms of the world - is he in the position to do so? Many have indicated that Satan would have used a display of power to demonstrate that he had authority to do so - so he (Satan) takes Jesus up to a an exceedingly high place and shows Him (Jesus) all the kingdoms of the world. In having already set the stage of supernatural acts, Satan simply could have shown Jesus the kingdoms in a supernatural way (say a vision) without needing a direct line of sight to literally every kingdom across the globe. This is left to be inferred, but the facts given suggest supernatural events are at play so deducing this is physically impossible is just a misapplication of naturalistic assumptions being applied when the text has not warranted doing so.2. If you truly believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, where is the mountain spoken of in Matthew 4:08?
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?