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.
That's just fried air.That's highly naive.
How?What she was looking for was a response to the friend's question about evolution (and dinosaurs). The correct response is that evolution is compatible with Christianity and with the existence of an intelligent designer.
How can evolution be consistent with an intelligent creator? By having a creator who works through evolution, of course. That would include both one who works through natural processes and one who intervenes from time to time in otherwise natural processes.How?
Alright, but my point is the same.It's not an assumption. It's the very definition of phylogenetics.
I think it's called genetics.You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm talking about.
Biologists have moved well past making the case for evolution and into taking that knowledge and using it for practical applications.
Well, as i said, this can be used as a good piece of evidence to make a case for evolution, but i don't think it poses a problem for creationism.For example if you look up things like 'phylogenetic shadowing' and 'phylogenetic footprinting', you'll find techniques used in modern genomics that directly apply data from phylogenetic trees. And this data is being applied to aid in the discovery of functional regions of the genome or prediction of gene functions.
Here's an example: Phylogenetic Shadowing of Primate Sequences to Find Functional Regions of the Human Genome | Science
Heck, there are even patents based on applied evolutionary biology.
But that's the assumption you use as a conclusion.What 'new data' are you talking about? If you're talking about DNA sequences, we already know perfectly well how novel DNA arises: replication and variation/mutation.
No, because as you didn't quote, i said:How can evolution be consistent with an intelligent creator? By having a creator who works through evolution, of course. That would include both one who works through natural processes and one who intervenes from time to time in otherwise natural processes.
Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.You can't have a natural(istic) explanation for a supernatural creation.
I didn't quote that part because I thought your first question was the more important one, and that was the one I was answering.No, because as you didn't quote, i said:
Neither does any other scientific theory, yet most people have no trouble reconciling chemistry, say, with theism.Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.
No, what you're describing is naturalism, not the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is, surprisingly enough, a scientific theory about evolution. It's not a philosophical belief about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.
It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
Of course.I didn't quote that part because I thought your first question was the more important one, and that was the one I was answering.
Neither does any other scientific theory, yet most people have no trouble reconciling chemistry, say, with theism.
The ToE is a natural(istic) theory / idea.No, what you're describing is naturalism, not the theory of evolution.
Why don't you read my long post where i explain this very thing:The theory of evolution is, surprisingly enough, a scientific theory about evolution. It's not a philosophical belief about the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.
....
So it's a philosophical belief.
But, it's also the paradigm in which science is conducted, that is, the natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry and biology.
So the scientists can only approach it within the natural paradigm.
But it becomes a religion when you make it naturalism or science-ism.
This necessitates the familiar models to involve HUGE amounts of time, to give it more chance of all coming about by chance.
Because there is no room in natural science for intelligent influences.
A supernatural being doing / having done stuff is unapproachable by science.
But what they have us believe is that they know that there never was any supernatural intelligent influence, like a creator, God.
And they're even right in a way, by saying that it's not scientific to try to incorporate God or gods or what have you, in the equation.
But this simply means it's beyond the grasp of science.
It does not mean that God is not a better explanation for the existence of our reality.
In fact, God existing and creating (or having created) is a far better explanation for the existence of our reality than far fetched, ambiguous models with many holes and problems of their own.
But people, myself included, need a couple of years to de-programme the years of indoctrination and suggestion that is and has been bombarded upon in numerous ways.
....
It's beyond the realm of the natural sciences.So? How are creationists proposing to make God into a term in a scientific formula?
You fail to realise, as many do, that SCIENTIFIC in this case means NATURAL.The THEOLOGICAL belief that God is the ultimate cause of all things is not incompatible with a SCIENTIFIC description of the universe, but they most definitely are not the same thing.
After a decade i fear it is no use..Again, I've been debating this stuff for over a decade. If you can point me to argument for evidence of intelligent manufacture of DNA (beyond human genetic engineering mind you), that doesn't boil down to an argument from incredulity then I'd love to see it.
It's actually looking at the past. Light can only travel so quickly.No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.
He was referring to our solar system and earth.It's actually looking at the past. Light can only travel so quickly.
This is not what science is supposed to be, it is not science.
So what is the boundary as what you consider the present. Pluto is 327 light minutes away.He was referring to our solar system and earth.
iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.
any things i could say to prove him wrong?
love
camila smith <3
Who are these people? What you're saying is not a scientific conclusion, yet you're attributing it to science. In short, what on earth are you talking about? Have you ever read any scientific work on evolution?They just assume and have you believe that God didn't have anything to do with it.
Been there done that.
Can you prove creation is a fact?
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?