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".
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?
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.
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 fact, we most certainly have witnessed evolution both in the field and in the lab.
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.
The very fact that you state "evolution is just a theory" shows that you do not understand the scientific use of the term.
And they didn't start out with such diversity. Differing melanin levels in human skin are an evolutionary adaptation to the environment.
Evolution doesn't claim otherwise. In fact, a dog giving birth to a cat would be a fatal blow to evolutionary theory.
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?
Including you?
So you believe in the literalness of scripture do you? In that case:
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 didn't dismiss you as unintelligent nor did I tell you to butt out of the conversation.
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.
Again, you assumed a lack of knowledge on my part and called me ignorant solely because I disagree with you. THAT is insulting.
And when God's Word contradicts God's Fingerprints? Then what?
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;
Can you find the verse where this exists?
(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.
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 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.
Why would I need a verse for that?
Define "kind".
So 1+1=2 but 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 can never equal 10?
So you agree that evolution is both a fact and a theory?
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.
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).
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...
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.
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"?
Why not? If enough new information is received (via mutation, genetic drift, etc.), what prevents a new species from arising?
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 of evolution makes no difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Macro is just micro over a long period of time.
Except that God's Word is not, and was never meant to be, a science book.
That is why human ancestors aren't called humans, but home erectus, homo habilis, Neaderthals, and the like.
Yes, that's one of the distinctions recognized in homo erectus that distinguishes them from homo habilis
a distinctive feature of homo habilis,
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.
Inference is not evidence. What evidence led you to infer this? Bible verse interpretation or something less subjective.
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.
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.
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.
The theory doesn't, but unequivocal support only exists for micro-evolution.
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.
This is a just a labeling convention.
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.
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.
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?
Typical. Refuse to define your terms then act as if I did something wrong or unreasonable.
There are many, MANY fossils showing incremental changes. The fossil evidence of horse evolution is a great example of this.
No, it most certainly does not. No version of evolutionary theory posits that an existing species will evolve into another existing species.
What makes you think that the inability to mate with the parent species is the only definition of species?
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?
Of course it is a labeling convention. Just like Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, and Remingtonocetus are just "labling conventions" for various whale ancestors.
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.
Lots of species have mouths, teeth, tongues, vocal cords, lungs, and brains yet aren't capable of speech.
Anyone that wants to argue against 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.
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:
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).
Since you don't seem to want to discuss actual evidence, I only have two questions for you. Answer them if you wish.
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.
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.
