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.
I'm saying that God works through knowable laws that offer no scientific signs that He works through them. Sure, the complexity of life and the beauty of the universe is apparent and suggestive to me that God is at work, but that hunch can't be verified scientifically because science cannot establish God's agency.Are you saying God worked through knowable laws that offer no signs that God worked through them?
Yes, the less fit often survive. Less fit traits often survive when more fit traits don't. You'd know that if you were actually in a position to teach anyone about evolution.Survival of the less fit?
Yes, the less fit often survive. Less fit traits often survive when more fit traits don't. You'd know that if you were actually in a position to teach anyone about evolution.
I'm saying that God works through knowable laws that offer no scientific signs that He works through them. Sure, the complexity of life and the beauty of the universe is apparent and suggestive to me that God is at work, but that hunch can't be verified scientifically because science cannot establish God's agency.
If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.I see this as meaning there's no place for God in evolution
If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.
If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.
It's also true of all engineering theories about how bridges work, and all plumbing theories about how pipes work, and all auto mechanics theories about how cars work, and all cooking theories about how cakes bake. It's amazing how many atheists there are out there.If you mean that we don't need to appeal to miracles in order for evolution to work, then I agree. This is true of all scientific theories about how the world works.
I recall having a conversation on this some many years ago on another thread where evolutionists argued that ANY actions of people (including breeder's purposefully choosing) are 'natural' and therefore akin to 'natural' selection.
But what's amazing is how many people leapt in here in the first place to distance Darwin from this tautology - as if they're aware that it's embarrassing
It's also true of all engineering theories about how bridges work, and all plumbing theories about how pipes work, and all auto mechanics theories about how cars work, and all cooking theories about how cakes bake. It's amazing how many atheists there are out there.
Thanks for the beautiful appeal to incredulity.<snip>
=========
Montalban, by the scientists' own definitions of fitness, less fit traits can outcompete more fit traits.
Of course your own silly definition of fitness makes "survival of the fittest" a tautology, just as anyone with too much time and too little life can make "the Sun is shining in the sky", "all who call on Jesus will be saved", and "anyone who does not believe in evolution is ridiculous" tautological by a suitable redefinition. You have every right to speak Montalbanese; just don't expect your protestations to carry much weight with the people who are actually working hard to do real science.
=========
As for breeding and natural selection, here's a question for you.
You are a pineapple breeder who has discovered a novel gene with two alleles, dry and wet that controls the juiciness of pineapples. In a dry region such as Mexico, pineapple plants that are heterozygous (i.e. having one dry and one wet allele) produce moist, juicy fruit; but plants with two dry alleles produce shriveled and shrunken pineapples, while plants with two wet alleles produce pineapples that are so bloated that they cannot be transported without leaking juice all over the place.
Because pineapples are hard to pollinate manually, you can only control the breeding of pineapples by getting rid of undesirable plants after they have fruited.
What strategy would you use to breed these Mexican dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Mexican population over the long run?
At the same time, when you introduce this gene to pineapples grown in a moist region, such as Florida, you find that pineapples which are homozygous for the dry allele produce fruit which are just right. Heterozygous pineapples produce bloated fruit, and pineapples homozygous for wet simply explode when they are ripe!
What strategy would you use to breed these Florida dry-wet pineapples, and what genotypic structure do you expect to see in the Florida population over the long run?
For bonus points, figure out the natural-selection analogy to this example. Hint: it would be completely unethical to actually experiment on the distribution of these alleles in the relevant population.
Creation also doesn't have an alternative theory for the history of life. (No, ignoring reality does not count as a theory.)Creation doesn't have an 'alternative theory' for bridge engineering.
Only in the same sense that meteorology excludes God from a process that he says he's involved in, that astronomy excludes God from a process that he says he's he's involved in and that epidemiology excludes God from a process he says he's involved in.Evolution is a theory that excludes God from a process that God says he's involved in.
Sorry, but "You are wrong and you don't know what you're talking about" is not an appeal to incredulity. In fact, there was nothing about incredulity at all in the post you're responding to. You're using a different definition of fitness than anyone in evolutionary biology uses; that's a fact, and pointing it out is not fallacious in the slightest.Thanks for the beautiful appeal to incredulity.
It's almost as though you completely ignored everything I just explained to you.Evolution is a theory that excludes God from a process that God says he's involved in.
I accept that God says he put the stars in the sky. They actually address the pointCreation also doesn't have an alternative theory for the history of life. (No, ignoring reality does not count as a theory.)
Only in the same sense that meteorology excludes God from a process that he says he's involved in, that astronomy excludes God from a process that he says he's he's involved in and that epidemiology excludes God from a process he says he's involved in.
It's almost as though you completely ignored everything I just explained to you.
Evolution doesn't exclude God's action all; evolution has nothing to say about God's agency one way or another, and is like any other science in this respect.
Do you believe God continuously sustains the universe, Montalban? Or do you believe He only interjects Himself sporadically in order to keep things on track?
On what basis? Do you think all natural process (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, weather) exclude God?I think it EXCLUDES God.
So you aren't certain that God upholds all things at all times (Heb 1:3)?As to your questions about sustaining, I do not know. I have wondered about whether God still actively intervenes in the world.
I don't know what God does in those others, whether he actively participatesOn what basis? Do you think all scientifically-verified process (e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, weather) exclude God?
So you aren't certain that God upholds all things at all times (Heb 1:3)?
So why do you think evolution excludes God but aren't certain whether gravity, electromagnetism, or weather excludes Him?I don't know what God does in those others, whether he actively participates
I don't think Creationism is a theory that encompasses them
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?