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.
Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, are you?Basic doctrine belongs in the General Theology forums. We discuss science here.
No - alchemy was a philosophy and a system of magic, not science. Turning lead to gold through chemistry is what most people think of, but it was must vaster than that. We can actually can transmutate lead to gold through nuclear fusion, but this isn't alchemy.So, if I nailed it on biological alchemy, what is your opinion of regular old alchemy? Is/was alchemy a legitimate branch of science?
Alchemy was never considered a science?No - alchemy was a philosophy and a system of magic, not science.
Not to my knowledge. There's this myth that it's the precursor to modern chemistry, but that's as erroneous as the myth that people thought the world was flat before Christopher Columbus.Alchemy was never considered a science?
Nope - chemistry alone can't cause lead to become gold. The other posits of alchemy involve magic and esoteric mysticism, which don't work either.Shouldn't alchemy work in theory?
Maybe if you had conditions as hot as a star.Shouldn't alchemy work in theory?
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations.
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
Good analogy!Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.Is this an argument gleaned from that "cutting edge" research that you mentioned earlier?
If you put science versus religion then you are asking for trouble. It will be an unfair contest simply because science will demand empirical evidence that the supernatural cannot possible give. while the supernatural cannot refute the empirical evidences brought forth by science.Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
Not at all. Lots of the Bible can be shown to be true using science. Lots of people have come to a saving knowledge of the truth by trying to prove the Bible wrong. They discover that the Bible is accurate and true. Most people do not have a problem abiding in the truth. That is why most people accept Science and the Bible. The Bible has a time honored tradition of being true for a very long time now. It's man's traditions we have to watch out for. Be it science or religion.If you put science versus religion then you are asking for trouble.
The medical profession has no help for me. So I am not missing out on anything. We tell people to get everything you can from man and science. Then when they have nothing else to offer you, Go to God to receive Help from On High.you cannot accept the help of the medical profession while at the same time dismissing ToE.
Why do you find this surprising?Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations.
I dare say you do think that "evos" are worried about these results. That fact alone is good evidence that you know too little about evolutionary biology to be commenting on it.Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations. I don't know if the evos are reading this post Norm, but I gotta think that little piece of knowledge has them worried. I mean, the fact that over the course of 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, the fact that they still have E-coli in their petri dishes has got to have their precious theory in a tizzy.
Your numbers are a bit off. Lenski et al. estimated they'd seen ~20 beneficial mutations in one (out of 12) of their lines in just 20,000 generations. Since only a small fraction of beneficial mutations fix, the total number that had occurred must have been much higher, anywhere from thousands to tens or even hundreds of thousands, out of roughly tens of millions total mutations. So the actual fraction of mutations that were beneficial was probably somewhere between .01% and 1%. Hardly a shocking number.Let's think about that for a moment. Norm, six beneficial mutations out of hundreds of millions mutations... what is that statistically? Like 0.000000000000something% success rate? I bet they didn't look at it like that. What do you think?
You do realize that species designations in bacteria are pretty arbitrary, don't you? The E. coli in this experiment changed quite a lot more than humans have over the last 1+ million years. They completely changed their diet, increased their mutation rate by a factor of 70, and doubled in size (volume). Meanwhile, in 1 million years humans have gotten a little thinner, increased their brain size modestly and, well, that's about it.Let's look at another aspect of that test. Let's say that those 50,000 generations were people instead of E-coli. Assuming the average human generation is between twenty and thirty years, that would mean the very average is twentyfive. 25x50,000 = 1,250,000. That little test would represent 1.25 million years in humans if it were carried over from E-coli to humans. We know that after 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, that the E-coli is still E-coli, that would mean that humans would still be humans 1.25 million years ago. But wait! "Modern humans" are supposed to have only arrived on the scene 200,000 years ago.
So humanity has not much changed in the last 1 million years?Meanwhile, in 1 million years humans have gotten a little thinner, increased their brain size modestly and, well, that's about it.
Do you have children? If your child was seriously ill or it was involved in a serious life threatening accident; Do you mean to tell me you will forgo Medical treatment and just pray for its recovery?The medical profession has no help for me. So I am not missing out on anything. We tell people to get everything you can from man and science. Then when they have nothing else to offer you, Go to God to receive Help from On High.
Not compared to the bacteria in this experiment, no. If you think they have, argue the case. Also, argue the case that hundreds of millions of mutations are a lot for an entire population. You were making a big deal out of that.So humanity has not much changed in the last 1 million years?
Put up a defence against your ineffectual Tonka-toy comment? Why would one bother?Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe?
Is that where you found the Tonka-toy comment?Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily?
I take that to mean there is nothing of scientific significance in the bible. Do understand the importance of falsifiability?There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way.
And like yourself, just not in any way that they can demonstrate.May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
You are of course looking at this backwards (no suprises there then).In response to the OP, a pesky little thing called genetic limitations. Examples:
A horse and a donkey can be bred..... once. The outcome is a sterile crossbreed. The females are almost always sterile and the male is ALWAYS sterile. There will never be a reproducing population of horse/donkey mixes. This is the end of their genetic limitation.
Dogs and foxes cannot interbreed.
Many creatures that would seem to be very close anotomcally, cannot mingle. There are genetic limitations.
Of course, to the evolutionist, a cow can eventually become a whale over "long periods of time" and somehow that's "scientific", but what we see in the real world is that there are limitations on how far an animal can actually go.
This can so easily be disproved, you could do it yourself.You start with ecoli you end up with ecoli. No new species has been found, created or discovered. Even after 50,000 generations. You can have descent, you can have modification. There is no descent with modification.
Show us the evidence to back up your erroneous claim then.Evos become good at ignoring the evidence. Because the evidence clearly shows their theory is bogus. You can have modification, you can have descent. But you can not put the two of them together and come up with anything.
And I am supposed to belive this why exactly?The new heaven and the new earth will have lots of precious metals and stones.
The bible tells us that we can move mountains with faith.Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
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?