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.
"Every textbook" that I've ever come across about the theory of evolution (taken as a whole, not looking at an individual species) does. And I'm not just talking about them both being covered in a science text. I'm talking about, as I posted examples of earlier, abiogenesis being included in every science text written specifically about ToE."Every textbook" does not. As I said, they're both natural sciences, so not unusual that they would both be covered in a science text.
C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."Yes we were. You were correct in saying that we're not made of dust. Made and created are two different things.
To create something is to make something from nothing or to use components already present to make something new. Try finding anything in the human body that can't be found in the earth.
Oh, so none of those exist in the earth outside of living beings?C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."
Sorry, science wins.
What's your strawm... er, point?"Every textbook" that I've ever come across about the theory of evolution (taken as a whole, not looking at an individual species) does. And I'm not just talking about them both being covered in a science text. I'm talking about, as I posted examples of earlier, abiogenesis being included in every science text written specifically about ToE.
You must be more ignorant than I thought. Even science acknowledges that living bodies consist of things that can be found naturally occurring in the earth.C, H, O, N, P & S are not the primary components of "dirt."
Sorry, science wins.
There you go again, trying to say that I'm saying that we're "made of dirt" and flipping the "created from..."I'm not in control of what you think, but at least I know humans aren't made of dirt.
If what you say doesn't comport with reality, well there you go. I really don't care what you say or believe, only what you can demonstrate with evidence, and all the evidence we have says, that we, like all life on earth, are products of evolution.There you go again, trying to say that I'm saying that we're "made of dirt" and flipping the "created from..."
But actually, unlike you, I believe that humans are much more than bodies created from the elements of the earth - because the Bible also says that following the creation of the bodies God breathed life into them. And that - the God-breathed life - is what we really are - not this physical body that He created for us to inhabit.
Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.If what you say doesn't comport with reality, well there you go. I really don't care what you say or believe, only what you can demonstrate with evidence, and all the evidence we have says, that we, like all life on earth, are products of evolution.
You're free to believe what you need to about humans, the bible and god breathed life, but I'll accept what can be demonstrated with evidence.
Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.
We have never observed abiogenesis. We have never observed a species evolving into a new and better species. These are just theories about how things could have happened based on what we have observed. It would be like me saying that since I've seen somebody jump 6 inches off the ground, then somebody could exist who can jump 100 feet off the ground, and then noting that other people can jump 8 inches, 10 inches, a foot, etc. That isn't evidence that my theory is correct - just that my observation that people can jump is correct.
The mutations that occur in the genetic code are, similarly, not evidence that the theory of evolution (specifically the macroevolution) is correct - it is merely evidence that what has been observed does indeed happen.
Every explanation for our reality and universe in its current state is natural because that's the way God created it.Yet, every explanation for our reality and universe is a natural one. No god needed.
Believe what you need to, I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply pointing out that you aren't even able to demonstrate a god/s exists, so what makes you think that anything you say regarding your religious opinions on the natural sciences are in any way relevant?
Your fist sentence made me chuckle, as the Carlin bit, "...but he loves you," came to mind.Every explanation for our reality and universe in its current state is natural because that's the way God created it.
Until recent years, when the intelligence of humanity declined enough to believe ridiculousness, the presence and complexity of life and a universe in and of itself was enough evidence that Someone must have created it. Just because you can observe natural processes and say that they account for everything that exists without a need for God doesn't make it true. And the fact remains that, while many mutations have been observed, the emerging of an entirely new species through such mutation has never been observed.
Like our musculoskeletal system, evolution has its limits.
And I'm not trying to convince you either - I know that you've already determined that anything involving God makes less sense than anything involving purely natural processes.
Germany and the Scandinavian countries were never part of the Roman Empire.The Roman empire which occupied a vast area throughout Europe icluding Germany, England and the Scandinavian countries became Christian by the 5th century.
Sorry, but science has not demonstrated that. Macroevolution is nothing but a theory about how life could have come about without God, but if you have God in the picture you don't need that theory.
Are we talking microevolution (the small changes that take place in a species, leading to variations, but do not lead to new species) or macroevolution (the theory that microevolution, given enough time, can cause a species to slowly turn into another species altogether)?
In terms of macroevolution, there's one simple reason that I don't believe it - it assumes there is no God.
Now, before all you eager atheists and agnostics jump on this and say that "science doesn't speak to God," I will elucidate this statement.
Even though scientists claim that science - in which they include the "science" of origins - does not speak to the existence of God, this is nothing more than a falsification of fact. The reason is simple: If God exists, then, by His very nature, there are things in this world that cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God.
When scientists say that everything in this world can be satisfactorily explained without the presence of God, it is the same as saying that there is no God. Because if there is a God, then His actions will have caused effects that cannot be satisfactorily explained without Him.
What intrigues me is that - in this regard - evolutionists apply a premise that is not thought reasonable if applied anywhere else. The premise is that if we can understand the parts and workings of something, that is evidence that it didn't have a Designer.
There is another premise applied by evolutionists that is not thought reasonable anywhere else. That is that if things are similar, that is evidence that one came from another, or all from some lower thing of the same variety.
But if we tried to apply these premises to any other orderly thing in the universe, these same scientists would ridicule us.
For example, we understand very well how a cell phone works. But if we tried to use our understanding of a cell phone as evidence that it came to being by completely natural processes with no intelligent interference, we would be ridiculed for this notion (and rightly so).
If we were to say that the faces on Mt. Rushmore were carved out over thousands of years by natural processes and just happen to look like real faces, we would be ridiculed (and rightly so).
If we were to claim that because all vehicles have features common to them, it's evidence that they evolved without outside interference from a single vehicle, which itself came about through purely natural processes, we would be laughed at (and rightly so).
And yet, scientists say that because we can understand a large portion of the incredibly complex systems that make up physical life - because we can analyze the components that all living creatures physically have to process food, water, etc. - that this is enough evidence to say that there is no need for an intelligent Creator of life.
Furthermore, they say that because all life has certain similarities, it all evolved from an original life form, that itself came about by purely natural causes. They further say that closer similarities indicate evolutionary ancestry.
So why do I choose to not believe in macroevolution? Because I believe that there is a God, and therefore there are things that exist because He made them to exist. And the most unsatisfactory explanations of evolution do not negate the intricacy, complexity, and glory of His works.
Question. How do you explain the fossil record without evolution. And before you begin, forget about transitional fossils, they are not necessary. What you need to explain is how all the different life forms throughout geologic time got where they are in such a way that shows evolution without evolution. If evolution were false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed in all layers of geologic strata. Or are you going to say they all just popped into existence at just the right place and time?
Your strawman can not stand - any more than your last strawman stood.
"If evolution were false we would find all fossils in all layers of the geologic column."
"Are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before Husky and Mastiff mated to create the Chinook? It is quite clear from observational data that we should NOT find the Chinook in all layers of the geological column, since the Chinook can not exist until after the Husky and Mastiff exist to mate."
Well answer me - are you claiming we should find bones of the Chinook before the Husky and mastiff mated to create the Chinook? You ain't gonna get out of this one. Your strawman is going to be shown for what it is - pure dishonesty and distraction.
I just showed you three textbooks that are used to teach evolution, and all three of them discuss the origin of life.
As I've said several times - it is taught as part of the theory of evolution. You want to separate it for your purposes in this thread, but not in the classroom.
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?