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.
This is wrong; coelacanths (note the spelling) have a long fossil record, from the Lower Devonian to the Upper Cretaceous, and they did change during that time - Coelacanth - Wikipedia . The modern coelacanth (genus Latimeria) belongs to a different genus from all extinct coelacanths, and the youngest recorded fossil coelacanths (Megalocoelacanthus dobiei and Axelrodichthys megadromos) belong to different families (Latimeriidae and Mawsoniidae). The Latimeriidae comprise eleven genera and the Mawsoniidae nine.
I think that this is enough to show that the statement that coelacanths 'didn't change over time' is inaccurate. I should add that coelacanths are not a single species or even a single genus but an order (Actinistia), on the same taxonomic level as Primates. This implies that coelacanths of the Latimeriidae and the Mawsoniidae were no more closely related than, for example, apes and lemurs.
One of the best so far. It didn’t end up reductionist to absurdity,Evolution: An explanation of the changes in physical characteristics of living organisms over time in order to better adapt to the environment and reproduce.
Yet you offer no definition. Not helpful
This is largely because there are no real new ideas in "creationism" and nearly everything is just newbies posting tired arguments for creationism and long-term creationists that seem immune to even understanding the opposing arguments. (I'm not saying I expect them to be convinced, but I would expect them to eventually learn something about the thing they argue against. `Tis very frustrating.)
I just felt like mentioning that some creationists do learn. I mean, I used to be a rabid anti-evolutionist who thought Answers in Genesis was too compromising. But I eventually learned something about the subject I opposed (after first taking care of the Genesis question which, it turns out, was the only real obstacle). Some of us do learn. And it's the patient teaching attitude of people like you that make the difference, so don't give up.
I pray he won't be the next victim of Paul's caveat.Glad to here you've escaped from that.
I pray he won't be the next victim of Paul's caveat.
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Which is ...?
Please note, this is meant to be a fun but interesting challenge.
No demeaning of beliefs here! This is about what can be proven.
Background.
If we look at the word evolution - Various posters have declared evolution as a "scientific fact". They somehow claim the imprimateur of science for whatever definition it is they hold.
Yet I am told by google if I search the "definition of evolution" in the dictionary is one of faith not science it says: "the process by which different kinds of living organism are BELIEVED to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth" (upper case was mine)
So I am confused. Is it belief or scientific fact? Do those two contradict? Only those who declare it a scientific fact can tell us the definition they think is factual. Belief is OK! All of us hold some. But "scientific fact" clearly goes beyond that.
Dawkins wants to tell us he has no idea where life came from, but then simultaneously wants to tell us it is a fact it came from random chemistry or his words used for that. Cognitive dissonance seemingly.
My personal view of "evolution" or particulary theories of evolution is that they are a mish mash of theories , hypotheses and pure conjecture in various states of evidence and proof. (eg is survival of fittest, implicit, explicit or nothing to do with the core definition?) As someone who likes legal precision, The word is mushy and the more I hear people quoting such as Darwin or references to such as intelligent design, the more I discover they almost certainly have never read the source references. If they did for example they would discover that Darwin stated life was miraculous!( Darwinists do not popularise that!)
So my question to those here who think "evolution is a scientific fact" not a belief:
Here is the challenge. Give me the shortest definition you can of evolution
(yes this is an excercise in irreducible complexity). What precisely do you say is a "scientific fact"?
Ground rules.
- For the basis of the argument we will use NASA and Harvard definition of life as "self replicating , self evolving". If you use the word "life" or "living" that is what you mean, and all instances must be included unless you exclude some.
The answer cannot use the word evolving or evolution otherwise it becomes circular!
The winner is the one who uses the least words - but there can no exceptions permitted , the answer must catch all of what it purports to cover..
If you use "life" you must mean all life unless they explicitly restrict it. It must also be an unbroken chain. The chain is as strongest as the weakest link.
There can be no room for "belief" in a fact. A single unanswerable objection or exception renders the definition a belief not a fact. If you mean "could have" it renders it not a fact!
Unless you actively reject the possibility from the definition of a creator/designer ergo you accept the possible involvement of said creator or designer. So do you regard evolution and creation as in opposition?
the definition must tell us.
Any takers.
What is this "evolution" that is a scientific fact. I am genuinely interested.
I pray that doesn't happen.
You are correct.It can't (e.g., Jn 6:39).
Atheism is a mindset that stems from the heart.I don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, a born-again person can sink to that level [atheism]. Remember the story of the prodigal son? Remember Nimrod? The term we use for this is "backsliding." A Christian, then, can backslide into atheism.
I'm going to disagree here."Becoming an atheist and dying in that state cannot happen" (emphasis added).
Not really. This thread was you asking people to provide their own concise definitions. And now you're taking some bizarre victory lap because different people gave you different answers.
No, they don't contradict. 'Facts' are beliefs -- beliefs that are well enough supported that we can routinely treat them as true. Microbes are believed to be the cause of most infectious diseases. It is a fact that microbes cause most infectious diseases.So I am confused. Is it belief or scientific fact? Do those two contradict?
That is not correct. 'Evolution' describes a physical process while 'creation' ascribes a metaphysical cause. Acceptance or rejection of evolution is independent of belief or disbelief in God.As this post is in the "Creation and Evolution" forum, the context of evolution here is as a God-less substitute for Intelligent Creation.
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?