Confused-by-christianity
Well-Known Member
- May 6, 2020
- 1,305
- 398
- 49
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
Are you a scientist or teacher??Here, you merely doubt the power of God to make a universe in which complex behaviors can evolve. Your lack of faith is not an argument against reality
... ... ...
high school biology class, it's pretty funny.
The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious. Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong. What they cannot bring themselves to do is admit that the whole premise of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens. I don't buy that.Here, you merely doubt the power of God to make a universe in which complex behaviors can evolve. Your lack of faith is not an argument against reality.
Yes, but because you don't know what either is, you confuse the two.
Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Adaptation is a change that makes an organism more fit in an environment.
Shouldn't be that difficult, but some people just can't get it.
- Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.
- A new mutation that doesn't affect fitness is evolution, but not adaptation.
- A new mutation that provides protection against a parasite is evolution and adaptation.
If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. People who think they hate evolution don't even know what it is. That kind of thing happens in the fantasies of creationists, but not in the real world.
Getting things wrong is not exaggeration. It's just getting things wrong. You're just showing how ludicrous creationist ideas seem on examination.
For example, eukaryotes. Seems pretty new and unique to me. But we've observed bacteria evolve endosymbiotically, becoming an essential part of another organism like our mitochondria, or the chloroplasts in plants.
And given that prokaryotes are actually an independent domain, that would be like saying a human evolving from another ape isn't really evolution because they are still eukaryotes.
You may not know enough about biology to realize how ludicrous it is, but to anyone who paid attention in high school biology class, it's pretty funny.
The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious. Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong. What they cannot bring themselves to do is admit that the whole premise of evolution is fundamentally flawed. The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens. I don't buy that.
That is one of the reasons I believe in a creation prior to Adam. It's also known as the Gap theory. I read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. It makes fascinating reading.The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.
It does not mean that the evolution as a process of creation is impossible.
We can clearly see that bodies changed significantly over time. There were no cows among dinosaurs. So, "all was created at once" is not scientifically possible. We are left with progressive creationism and theistic evolution. The latter makes more sense IMO.
The gap theory is problematic, because:That is one of the reasons I believe in a creation prior to Adam. It's also known as the Gap theory. I read "The Mystery of Creation" by Watchman Nee. It makes fascinating reading.
No one knows for sure as we were not there to witness it. However, it answers a lot of questions. Personally, I see no need for any explantion except what is recorded in Genesis. Just because we do not understand does not mean that we cannot accept.
But you can't show us one? Why?The flaws in evolutionary theory are obvious.
That's the nature of science. Newton got some of it wrong, too. Boyle got some of it wrong. Einstein got some of it wrong. Science changes to fit the evidence. Creationism has to try to change the evidence to fit the beliefs. Do us a favor and show us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. What do you have?Why? Because evolutionists themselves often have to admit that they got it wrong.
This confirms what people have noticed about creationists. Those who think they hate evolution, have no idea what it is. Look up the four points and then show us which of them has been falsified. Prediction: not going to happen.The fundamental premise of evolution is that it happens because it happens.
The life on Earth is so colorful, complex, interconnected and the mechanisms of various plant and animal bodies are so astonishing that its really hard to think its all some mechanistic coincidence. Some realities in nature are not easily explainable with unplanned small steps. Sure, the providence of God is visible in our universe, if one is open to see it.
It does not mean that the evolution as a process of creation is impossible.
Yes. Exactly. We see now, as through a glass, darkly. But we will know. There are mysteries of faith, but our faith sustains us.Just because we do not understand does not mean that we cannot accept.
The Four Points are variation in populations, inherited traits, offspring competition, and survival of the fittest.Do us a favor and show us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. What do you have?
Nope. If you take a pile of seeds and put them very close together in the earth, a few will survived to produce more seed, but most won't.A) Refutation The seeds that produce seeds, are genetically identical to the ones that don't, except for minor variations. Which seeds survive is providential. Matthew 3: 3 -23. A
The actual point is "some of the variations make an organism more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. And that's an observed fact, also. You seem to have lost focus after this.Point 2) There is therefore a struggle for existence (survival of the fittest)
If #4 (inherited traits) is true then #1 (offspring competition) is falseNope. If you take a pile of seeds and put them very close together in the earth, a few will survived to produce more seed, but most won't.
Natural Selection #3 variations #4 inherited1. more are born than can live.
2. every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. some of these differences affect its likelihood of surviving long enough to reproduce
4. the useful ones tend to spread in a population, and the harmful ones tend to disappear.
Nope. Every organism is slightly different than the others. Even "identical twins" are not perfect genetic copies of each other.If #4 (inherited traits) is true then #1 (offspring competition) is false
One ornithologist discovered that the difference of 1mm in the length of the breastbone of a sparrow would matter in survival in a hard midwest winter.The ones that survive will, with very small genetic variation, be copies of the Type of parents. A mouse will be a mouse.
It's likely to produce no seed at all. But sunflowers with genes that make them more likely to survive such stress tend to leave more seeds.A sunflower seed that grows weak planted on stony ground will produce a seed that becomes a strong sunflower on fertile soil
Environment matters. In fact, fitness only matters in terms of environment.Are you saying that planting close together affects "natural selection?
Why do you think gardeners thin out seedlings after planting?The is demonstrably false as "natural selection" depends on proximity, opportunity and ability more than an environmental condition such as crowding.
If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.1) Now tell me, if man eventually acquires the tools, material, the know how and a good technician, how long in a laboratory before a technician could assemble a person and mouse?
However, those differences exist in the inherited genetic material. It is not added from an outside source. It is recombination of existing genes.Nope. Every organism is slightly different than the others. Even "identical twins" are not perfect genetic copies of each other.
Stress is mostly cultural. Soil fertility, adequate water. The flowers may be small, seeds low in number but when seeds are planted in better cultural conditions, the plants are normal or better.It's likely to produce no seed at all. But sunflowers with genes that make them more likely to survive such stress tend to leave more seeds.
Fitness does not matter in natural selection. Survival and reproduction are providence, not fit, lucky or strong.Environment matters. In fact, fitness only matters in terms of environment.
Natural Selection requires these three elements (among others)Why do you think gardeners thin out seedlings after planting?
There are scraps of wooly mammoth chromosomes It is my understanding that scientists are reassembling those scraps into a viable genome to reproduce the animal.If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.
No. They are mutations, changes in the genetic code. You have about a hundred that didn't exist in either parent.However, those differences exist in the inherited genetic material. It is not added from an outside source. It is recombination of existing genes.
Those are environmental factors, not cultural.Stress is mostly cultural. Soil fertility, adequate water.
Sorry, that's just wrong. Even many creationists now admit the fact that fitness determines survival.Fitness does not matter in natural selection.
As Napoleon once observed, God favors the side with the most cannon. The race is not always to the swift, but that's where the smart money is.Survival and reproduction are providence, not fit, lucky or strong.
Would it matter to your faith? Never define God by what man can not yet do. If you faith is not strong enough, science can't help you.At what stage of the process would the technician diversify the various genomes into species?
We observe evolution going on all around us. Trust God, not man's religious inventions.We have a soul, that gives life to the body and make it function. Evolution is killed by this fact.
Definition:Those are environmental factors, not cultural.
DefinitionNo. They are mutations, changes in the genetic code. You have about a hundred that didn't exist in either parent.
Somebody did manage to build a living cell from scratch. The only interest I have in that fact is who and how.If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith? If so, you have your faith in the wrong things.
No. Environment is every factor that could change the likelihood of that organism surviving to reproduce.Definition:
Environment:
1) Environment is the complete chemical composition in which the organism is found.
No. Change in genetic code. Most mutations don't damage the code at all. In fact, it's likely that none of the maybe 100 you have does any damage whatever.Definition
Mutation:
A) Damage to existing genetic code.
From the dictionary of Biology:Speciation:
In fact, many speciations occur in response to the environment. The evolution of the apple maggot fly from the hawthorne maggot fly was because of a change in environment. Would you like to learn about that?Speciation doesn't have anything to do with adapting to the chemicals (Environment)
No, that's wrong. God has no body, according to Jesus. No one else has done it. But you dodged the question. If scientists eventually manage to build a living cell from scratch, would it harm your faith?Somebody did manage to build a living cell from scratch.
I just cited an example of God creating via evolution. Would you like to see some more examples? Creationists are not comfortable with a God great enough to make a world that would produce new living things according to His will.And how God does creation is not Darwin 4 Point Evolution.
I knew you were going to say that. That is why I used Ph of water. Water is a chemical, H2O. It is more likely that critters such as deer and rabbits would eat the biggest, juiciest plants, the most Darwinian Favored Races, so foraging doesn't prove survival of the fittest.o. Environment is every factor that could change the likelihood of that organism surviving to reproduce.
Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."Speciation
Definition
noun, plural: speciations
The process in which new genetically distinct species evolve usually as a result of genetic isolation from the main population
That "evolution" is not completed.The evolution of the apple maggot fly from the hawthorne maggot fly was because of a change in environment.
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?