The completely opposite claim made by the same creationists, that scientists cling to the dogma of evolution and won't consider creationism, makes it even stranger.
Upvote
0
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 find this idea that science must be immutable to be very strange.
Our knowledge of the natural world is shaped by data found in the natural world, and so our knowledge of the natural world is going to change the more we learn about it.
If the natural world is subject to vanity, will the data be subject to vanity as well?
And if subject to vanity, will that mean our knowledge is subject to vanity as well?
And if a tree in the forest poops on a bear, does it make a sound?
There's nothing like using the Scriptures to bring out the true ...
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Because Romans 8:20 has absolutely nothing to do with anything here,
"Vanity" is equivalent to "futility." Because of sin, the creation was made to operate under a law which specifies a universal process of decay and death. This law of morpholysis is recognized by science as a basic principle pervading the whole universe. It is also called the law of increasing entropy (meaning turning inward) or the Second law of Thermodaynamics. Every system in the physical and biological worlds has a tendency to turn inward and feed on itsef to maintain its structure and activity, but this simply causes it to run down, disintegrate and die, unless it somehow becomes opened to outside sources of energy, information, food, etc. Even if it does remain an open system, this internal tendency continues to act in opposition to the incoming energy. Since even the latter will eventually be exhausted, the whole creation is thus in bondage to this principle of futility or vanity. But since this law has been imposed by God, He aso can remove it, and there still is "hope."
My one and only message in this thread, and only because threadstarter is so spot on, on the issue of evolution "theory".
Evolution is not a theory. it is an explanation. I will not accept to call evolution a theory, because that normally in science a theory has to have some predictive power, to point towards new experiments, to further technology or some other positive goal for science.
Evolution "theory" has no predictive power in my field of science (molecular biology). You cannot tell from the protein structure of glutathion-S-transferase in mouse, what will be the structure of glutathion-S-transferase in a dog. It might be similar, in most cases, but it might also be very different. And one other thing, you cannot tell which species have the enzyme and which have not.
Molecular biology should be a core science for evolution "theory", because we are the ones with the DNA you know !? So if evolution "theory" is not good science in molecular biology, why do people still call it science? It is an explanation, for the common man, it is not something that researchers are seriously building their predictions upon.
Having realized the abuse of the term "theory" and "science", I became angry with the masses of people who use those words like so easy and with so little intention of ever following it up scientifically. If anything, it lends the credibility of science to their selfsufficient lifestyles.
best regards ....
That's Evolution "theory" in a nutshell. Predicting nothing while accommodating everything. Meanwhile the faithful Darwinian mystics actually believe Evolution is constantly being successfully tested in every facet of the Life sciences. These are mantras they all repeat to each other like some sort of self-induced cult mind control.
But evolution has been observed occurring in many ways. It has been observed in the lab, in the field, in the fossil record, in our DNA, I could go on. If you want to keep yourself ignorant that is your prerogative. But you will only look silly when you try to argue against it.Nah, I prefer to remain ignorant and one sided in my opinion and will therefore reiterate that evolution has never been observed either in a lab or in the field. All you will ever observe is speciation and not evolution, regardless how many times you say it is. as for natural selection and mutations? really? I have absolutely no issue with either except where evolutionary acolytes use them as "proof" of evolution.
I could try to explain it, but I'd rather let an authority. Try this link;
Respectfully,
Kev
Hmm, must be stuck in Law and traditions of men. Break free and run to the grace God provided in this dispensation. You can do it, just believe that Christ died for your sins according to scripture, was buried, and rose again the third day according to scripture. His grace is waiting for you!
"just believe", ey?
Could you "just believe" that muhammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and split the moon in two?
I can't "just believe" anything. I need actual reasonable reasons to justify the beliefs that I hold.
I can only believe what convinces me. I don't "choose" my beliefs like I choose a steak over chicken wings.
Perhaps you should think about that.
We have already shown you what evolution would not accomodate. Numerous and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy in complex eukaryotes could not be accomodated.
Expecting a complex evolved feature to reverse itself precisely would be like shuffling a deck of cards twice and expecting it to end up in the exact order it started.
Uh huh. Like if a dog was more genetically similar to a spider than another mammal. That would falsify evolution wouldn't it? Who but evolutionists could ever have predicted that similar animals would be similar?
It's sad that you believe falsification criteria this weak is actually impressive. But then, it's all you have...
Well, yes, all we have is reality on our side.
Yep, you *predicted* that "things change" and "that which survives, survives", and "similar things are similar".
We are very impressed.
Yep, you *predicted* that "things change" and "that which survives, survives", and "similar things are similar".
We are very impressed.
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?