- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.
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.
You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.I would like to know why evolution is more unlikely than Creation. I have faith that God exists. However, I have evidence that evolution happened.
That's a common misconception, but speciations have been directly observed. Most creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and even familiies evolve from esisting ones. Which would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "kind,"You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.
Give me one population of a specific genus that produced a new genus.That's a common misconception, but speciations have been directly observed. Most creationist organizations now admit that new species, genera, and even familiies evolve from esisting ones. Which would put humans and chimpanzees in the same "kind,"
Foxes, (Vulpes) from Canis. YE creationists agree, arguing that both genera are "dog kind" and have a common ancestor.Give me one population of a specific genus that produced a new genus.
Your statement is unsupported. To support it you would need to present evidence that evolution miraculously stops at species level.You only have interpretations of evidence and micro-evolution that lead you to believe macro-evolution happened.
Evidence for a miracle?Your statement is unsupported. To support it you would need to present evidence that evolution miraculously stops at species level.
The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.Foxes, (Vulpes) from Canis. YE creationists agree, arguing that both genera are "dog kind" and have a common ancestor.
The longer answer to why dog-fox hybrids can’t exist has to do with the two species having vastly different numbers of chromosomes. Foxes and dogs diverged (that is, veered off from their common ancestor and became separate species) over 7 million years ago, and have evolved into very different creatures that cannot cross-breed.
No. Genus is not defined in the Bible. In fact, most YE creationist groups consider the various genera of canids to be "the dog kind", just as they consider different genera of felids to be "the cat kind."The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Creationists have already conceded the fact. If they don't do this, the number of animals on the Ark would become completely impossible.What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.
Reality doesn't take our beliefs into account.I believe God made foxes AND dogs on the same day of creation.
Yes, if you assume that speciation stops at the Genus level. If you can insert an unscriptural miracle any time the evidence fails to support your assumptions, then any assumption is equally valid.Evidence for a miracle?
I know you are not as dense as you want to appear.Evidence for a miracle?
Why do you want to want others to think you do not know that the bible is not a science book?The Bible defines genus (kind) as a plant or animal that can procreate with its own kind.
Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Since a Vulpes (fox) cannot breed with a Canine (dog) ...
SOURCE
... they belong in two different genera.
What evolutionists can't demonstrate is the idea that foxes CAME FROM dogs.
I believe God made foxes AND dogs on the same day of creation.
CORRECT: dogs + foxes
INCORRECT: dogs → foxes
Just so you know:No. Genus is not defined in the Bible. In fact, most YE creationist groups consider the various genera of canids to be "the dog kind", just as they consider different genera of felids to be "the cat kind."
Which of the thousands of garden varieties of creationists would that be?Creationists have already conceded the fact.
And how would that be a problem with God, who got the animals aboard in the first place?If they don't do this, the number of animals on the Ark would become completely impossible.
That is correct.Reality doesn't take our beliefs into account.
No, that's wrong, "Kind" is not a taxon. "Class" is several levels above "genus." "Race" is one level below "species." What did you use, a dictionary?Just so you know:
genus
(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin").
YE creationists like ICR, Answers in Genesis, those guys.Which of the thousands of garden varieties of creationists would that be?
The wonderful thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles is that it makes all ideas equally plausible,And how would that be a problem with God, who got the animals aboard in the first place?
But only one is the correct one.The wonderful thing about inventing non-scriptural miracles is that it makes all ideas equally plausible,
I'm talking about the theory that man evolved from bacteria over a slow, gradual process. I'm not arguing the fact that there are slow biological changes over time.
Is evolution even a theory?
1. "A scientific theory is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense ..."
I can admit the wording of this confuses me. Maybe it's too late at night. Maybe you can just explain how evolution fits this.
2. "A scientific theory is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation, if not totally correct ..."
[Evolution is] not really supported by many strands of evidence. [For one thing,] geology and astronomy are often said to coincide with evolution but evidence for the age of the earth and universe is not evidence for evolution. The best evidence is the fossil record, which has some holes and inconsistencies as well.
3. "A scientific theory has survived many critical real world tests which could have proven it false ..."
Like what? In a theory that is supposed to have happened over billions of years, what possible way could it be tested?
4. "A scientific theory makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory ..."
The only thing that would falsify evolution (as per a thread I started a while back) is the fossil record not supporting it. The fossil record doesn't outright contradict it but, at the same time, there is no strong evidence from it.
"5. A scientific theory is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty ..."
Yes, evolution fits this—at least enough not to argue about it.
6. "A scientific theory is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Occam's razor."
[...] So, creation—a simple idea—is overthrown by the complex, mathematically improbable and increasingly complex theory of evolution.
Collegial? Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution. There is some consilience among the approximate 40,000 Christian denominations on how to read the bible but there is still much to be desired.Collegial infallibility.
After how many tries and collaborations?Yes, for example the consilience of evidence from multiple unrelated fields for evolution.
After how many tries and collaborations?
After how many tries and collaborations?Science is accepted by peer reviews.
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?