My Evolution Challenge

[Astrophile]

the natural is a shadow of the spiritual ...

.it is a reflection of it and therefore not separate ... it has no light of its own ...

Is it a shadow or a reflection? They are not the same thing.

 

[Astrophile]

Why is it not possible for God to have used evolution to create the different lifeforms that we see in the world today and what wee have seen in the past and fossils of?

So far as I know, there is no reason at all why God (if He exists) could not have used evolution in this way. However, I should be inclined to say 'natural processes' rather than 'evolution'.

 

[honey badger]

Is it a shadow or a reflection? They are not the same thing.

they symbolize or speak to the same ...

 

[Astrophile]

There is a piece of land below Scotland, sadly.

Yes, but I don't think of England and Wales as the northern UK.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but I don't think of England and Wales as the northern UK.

I was mainly talking about the Border region and anything further north than the Mersey.

 

[Astrophile]

If it’s made you consider what YOU mean by the words evolution and life form , then the semantics have been worthwhile.

Children are now taught all life came from “ evolution” as opposed To “ creation”
its Time that statement was analyzed.

As a child, were you taught that God made you or that you were conceived by your parents, and which of these statements do you think is true?

 

[Larniavc]

because in Him were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or lordships or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and unto Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

That's a claim, not evidence.

 

[Larniavc]

There is no single theory of evolution, ToE , indeed some of what is called a theory isn’t in scientific terms.

That not really true.

ToE is basically various types of plants, animals, and other living things have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to changes in allele frequency over time.

That's what iit means in biology. You'll note it says nothing about origins.

 

[honey badger]

That's a claim, not evidence.

i gather you do not believe that the book i quoted from is inspired by God ... or perhaps you don't believe in the God Jesus testified to ...

 

[Larniavc]

there is no trying in what i wrote ... the trying is on your part ...

You misunderstand. I understand the meaning of what you wrote but in this thread the explanatory power it brings to the matter is negligible.

 

[Larniavc]

I was mainly talking about the Border region and anything further north than the Mersey.

Anything north of Preston is the Dark Lands. Few who venture there return to tell the tale.

 

[Larniavc]

i gather you do not believe that the book i quoted from is inspired by God ... or perhaps you don't believe in the God Jesus testified to ...

I've yet to see any evidence that what the Bible claims is accurate so I'm leaning towards it not being true.

 

[Mountainmike]

That not really true.

ToE is basically various types of plants, animals, and other living things have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to changes in allele frequency over time.

That's what iit means in biology. You'll note it says nothing about origins.

That’s not Darwin’s theory.

Which is progressive small change , and he notes that as the falsification criteria for his( so called) theory.

You are talking common descent,
a different thing altogether, which assumes a single start .
But if life was a chemical process the default assumption must be multiple starts. . Even Darwin rules out the ability to definitively say either way on that.

But no experiment can ever be conducted to show all life came from either of them , so are they even hypotheses?


Then there is survival of fittest etc,
Various molecular genetics theories, etc.
More besides.
All part of , hypotheses of, of theories of evolutin,

Will the real ToE please stand up?
The point is there is no single ToE if it’s a theory at all.

There is just a mush of definitions , bits of theory , some hypotheses and assumptions , and pure conjecture filling in gaps that is Called “ evolution”

 

[honey badger]

You misunderstand. I understand the meaning of what you wrote but in this thread the explanatory power it brings to the matter is negligible.

in your opinion ... but this thread is both for believers and non believers ... albeit a little research into the 66 books will reveal that they can hold their own up to any science book ... not to mention its not even possible for our natural mind to read and understand it let alone write it ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Anything north of Preston is the Dark Lands. Few who venture there return to tell the tale.

I... I was going to go onto a spiel about the history of industry in Northern England makes that kind of true, but I'm gonna see about closing the thread instead.

 

[Larniavc]

That’s not Darwin’s theory.

But it is the Theory of Evolution in 2023.

Darwinism is how old?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

in your opinion ... but this thread is both for believers and non believers ... albeit a little research into the 66 books will reveal that they can hold their own up to any science book ... not to mention its not even possible for our natural mind to read and understand it let alone write it ...

That's... that's really no true. The books of the Bible do not stand on their own against science since they are often filled with massive errors of science that make sense for a writer who did not know science at all, and they are also very possible for a natural mind to read and understand, and especially to write it.

 

[honey badger]

I've yet to see any evidence that what the Bible claims is accurate so I'm leaning towards it not being true.

then you have not looked ...

 

[honey badger]

That's... that's really no true. The books of the Bible do not stand on their own against science since they are often filled with massive errors of science that make sense for a writer who did not know science at all, and they are also very possible for a natural mind to read and understand, and especially to write it.

to say such a thing tells me you have not researched and studied it at all ....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

to say such a thing tells me you have not researched and studied it at all ....

It's very much the opposite of that. I've done the research and done the studying (not to like university degree mind you but still), nd from what I've come to find out, the Bible was written by men. Men inspired by their religion and their faith, and trying to explain the world around them as best they could, but explained by fallible and ignorant men.