-
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.
Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken
- Thread starter bhayes
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Well-Known Member
Will you please stop pulling your religion into this subject?
Those court cases weren't about religion. They were about ideas and wheter or not those ideas were scientific. Regardless of which religion is correct or wrong.
A bazillion evolution accepting christians will confirm that religion has nothing to do with this.
However, your insistence on dragging religion into this discussion, is a testament to the actual real underlying problem. And that problem does not lie in the science. It's in your head and your a priori dogmatic religious beliefs.
Upvote
0
macro-evolution isn't a fact, its a theory, nothing was tested, or observed, its a philosophical leap. micro-evolution is a fact, thats not disputed, but the two are completely different.
Upvote
0
So micro-evolution is basically textbook evolution. This is not going to be in depth but basically a trait is selected for and this trait is passed down to offspring. This is organisms adapting to their environment. Of course you can add on to this but the basic idea is descent with modification. As a result, a beetle, might get smaller when food is scarce etc, or a bird might grow lager wings etc etc. There are obviously extreme examples but the important point is that they remained the same "kind" as referenced in the bible. So a canine remains a canine, a fish remains a fish. Yes there are different kinds of fish, yes there are different kinds of plants and vegetation, but they remain in there kind. If you read the bible it says that all the creatures of the sea were created on the same day. So yes there are many different kinds of sea creatures within which variation occurs, but they are categorized as sea creatures, that is their environment. Likewise God created birds of the air, animals, creeping things (insects etc.), and plant yielding seeds. God also gave his creation wisdom.
This is not the same as macro evolution, which essentially says that Macroevolution is basically a belief that descent with modification can extend to different categories with which God created, so sea dwelling to land dwelling to flying to insects all come from a common origin. This is not the case, there is also no evidence for this, you can say the fossil record, but that is simply an interpretation, macroevolution has never been tested or observed, and it can never be tested or observed so it is taken by faith. What it boils down to is that from a solution of organic chemicals, all of variation and complexity on earth arises. That is what it boils down to. Interestingly if you listen to the first talk by Gerd Muller on the link I gave he says molecules aren't life, but God says "....everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."
Upvote
0
No and neither do you, that is my point. You believe what happens but you cant test it observe it so you take it by faith. I take it by faith that God created the heavens and the earth and every thing that you see. I believe that God created the categories, and over time they stay within this category. You believe that from an organic slur over millions of years life arose and we now have the abundance of variation that we see. In fact I think the evidence for God is overwhelming.
Upvote
0
8 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21
Upvote
0
The burden of proof isn't on Christians its on atheists to demonstrate how this ordered and intelligent world functions with no apparent purpose or design behind it. How it came from nothing, and how it functions in such a way that the order we see is actually chaos, how organic chemicals can randomly evolve into life, living beings with agency. The graph you posed is a nontestable theory but thats not the point. Prove to me how everything we know, ie order comes form order, etc. and all the scientific findings, which point to God, doesn't or is random.
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
So what it comes down to is that you assert that evolution cannot proceed beyond certain boundaries derived from an interpretation of the "kinds" referred to in Genesis.
It would be very helpful if you could characterize these "kinds" in terms of conventional taxonomy.
It would also be useful if you could describe the biological mechanism which maintains these boundaries; at present there is no evidence for anything of that sort.
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Multiple independent lines of evidence all support beyond doubt that life on earth has evolved from simple, to complex, over billions of years. That is why ToE is a theory, and not an hypothesis.
That you're unaware of basic scientific methods and theories is not my problem. If you want to be educated on actual science, then phrase a question in a respectful manner, and quit with the scripture vomit, it's gets you nowhere.
Upvote
0
No, they aren't. The same set of processes occur in each. If you must have a "difference", it is simply time.
.
Upvote
0
If you're looking for evidence of macro-evolutionary processes I suggest you checkout the HOX gene experiments at UCSD:
University of California, San Diego: External Relations: News & Information: News Releases : Science
I would point out that the origin of life question is quite a bit different from the concept of evolution and neither theory necessarily implies 'randomness".
Typically the origin of life issue comes down to ambiogenesis vs. panspermia concepts. Neither options precludes "intelligent design" in the final analysis.
Upvote
0
Excuse for what they (some scientists/some of you) wrongly derive. IOW calling it science excuses it being wrong and just opinion of what the real science actually points to.
Upvote
0
Yes. Real science is just that, real science, but calling an opinion of what real science points to, actual science as happens here way too much, is not real science.
Like the term, "Science proves evolution" when it does not, the opinions of what real science points to is claimed to prove evolution.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
