Evolution depends upon an assumption, namely that physical laws are constant, and that no supernatural force intervenes in the life of the universe, and therefore basically evolution must have occurred rather than creation. There is no proof of this assumption. In fact, Big Bang theorists argue that at least in the beginning physical laws were not constant.
Moreover, empircism is wholly dependant on technology. Take for instance even the idea of supernatural or preternatural and natural. From a scientific perspective, nothing is supernatural if it is real. Supernatural then is just a label to describe forces and phenomenon that are unusually beyond our current technology. Rather than admit that it is logical that when people have experienced a miracle, some verifiable, that there is something real going on that defies our current understanding of the physical universe, but that we are too primitive to understand it yet, the hard-core empiricist and the atheist evolutionist simply state the phenomenon does not exist.
Is that logical? or just an attept to reinforce predetermined views of what is real, and what is not?
As a Christian, one thing I accept is that God does change laws at times. Take for instance the issue of the first family, and how incest would obviously have been the only way to reproduce, and then even Aberaham much later had married his half-sister with no sense of this being wrong. However, by Moses time, it was forbidden. This suggests to me that God does intervene in physical laws. Otherwise, the in-breeding would have had disastous effects. I might add that the thoughtful evolutionist is presented with the same problem, though less pronounced, in their scenarios, but they have no solution.
How could a mutation survive without in-breeding within a small group?
Moreover, empircism is wholly dependant on technology. Take for instance even the idea of supernatural or preternatural and natural. From a scientific perspective, nothing is supernatural if it is real. Supernatural then is just a label to describe forces and phenomenon that are unusually beyond our current technology. Rather than admit that it is logical that when people have experienced a miracle, some verifiable, that there is something real going on that defies our current understanding of the physical universe, but that we are too primitive to understand it yet, the hard-core empiricist and the atheist evolutionist simply state the phenomenon does not exist.
Is that logical? or just an attept to reinforce predetermined views of what is real, and what is not?
As a Christian, one thing I accept is that God does change laws at times. Take for instance the issue of the first family, and how incest would obviously have been the only way to reproduce, and then even Aberaham much later had married his half-sister with no sense of this being wrong. However, by Moses time, it was forbidden. This suggests to me that God does intervene in physical laws. Otherwise, the in-breeding would have had disastous effects. I might add that the thoughtful evolutionist is presented with the same problem, though less pronounced, in their scenarios, but they have no solution.
How could a mutation survive without in-breeding within a small group?