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.
Smidlee said:Creationist does not deny the processes of evolution we observed everyday is science, it's the dogma that these processes are the results of origins of all species and complexies is what's being questioned.
So according to your statements even creationist is evolutionists in these research since we believe God did give species the ability to adapt to it's surroundings. so I can just as easily claims these research is based on bio-creation.
notto said:The mechanisms that cause speciation have been observed. Speciation has been observed.
What mechanisms are you suggesting are needed for 'verticle structure' changes in DNA? Please be specific.
What does 'horizontal' and 'vertical' mean in the context you are using it?
There is no demonstratable limit to changes that can happen in DNA that would prevent speciation and drastic changes in populations over multiple generations.
If you want to try to claim that speciation can't happen, then you need to discuss the actual mechanisms involved and not simply label speciation as 'vertical' and everything else as 'horizontal'. You are stating something is impossible by definition, without clarifying the defintion and giving a physical description of the difference in mechanisms needed to distinquish your classificiations.
What is needed for speciation that hasn't been observed?
Sojourner<>< said:The word species as used in my argument refers to the distinction between morphological species. What I'm really referring to is the biblical concept of "kind" which does not necessarily correspond with the linnaean classification system. On a case-by-case basis, "kind" could be matched with "species", sometimes with "genus" and possibly even with "family". The Biblical concept of "kind" does indicate a limitation in variation and can be used to account for missing links between kinds.
The Lady Kate said:It sounds like first you're looking at the current known limits of speciation, and then declaring that's the limits of a "kind."
So as more and more links are found, the definition of "kind" will also expand, until, someday, there is only one "kind..." the living "kind."
The "case-by-case" basis sounds dangerously close to an Ad Hoc classification. Something to be careful of...
Henry Morris in The Genesis Record shows that theistic evolution is clearly incompatible with the Bible.TheBear said:FYI - TE's are generally more consistant in scripture than YEC's.
shernren said:Exactly. It's not science. So why insist that it is?
I would still believe that the most honest approach to YECism would be to separate it from Christian science. You can go ahead and believe that the world is 6000 years old. But it would be very difficult to find scientific evidence for it that hasn't been falsified. If you can show me a scientifically self-consistent YEC viewpoint I'll be the first to sign up!
If the choice is between:
a YEC viewpoint which is slightly more scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically completely un-self-consistent,
and a TE viewpoint which may be slightly less scripturally self-consistent, but scientifically self-consistent,
guess which I choose?
Smidlee said:Oure knowledge of antiboiotics, medication, and other research has nothing to do with origins. This is another deception evolutionist love to use to claim all research is for them. Creationist does not deny the processes of evolution we observed everyday is science, it's the dogma that these processes are the results of origins of all species and complexies is what's being questioned. So according to your statements even creationist is evolutionists in these research since we believe God did give species the ability to adapt to it's surroundings. so I can just as easily claims these research is based on bio-creation.
Sojourner<>< said:I would hope that you choose the Rock rather than science, which is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth, especially in the case of the question of our origins which cannot be observed.
Remember that science is going to pass away like everything else on this planet. All that will remain is the Word of God.
TheBear said:One more thing - This moving goal-post tactic, (the blurring and shifting of terms and definitions), has got to stop. This is intellectual dishonesty.
TheBear said:That is a blatantly false analogy. What kind of witness is that? You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sojourner<>< said:To me this looks like a simple misunderstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think what he's trying to say is that what we know about evolution so far can as easily be applied to the Creationist world view as with the naturalistic world view.
Sojourner<>< said:I should be ashamed of standing up for the Word of God?
Are you actually suggesting that there is anything perfect in this world aside from the moment that the Lord sets foot upon it?
Remember that science is going to pass away like everything else on this planet. All that will remain is the Word of God.
Sojourner<>< said:Henry Morris in The Genesis Record shows that theistic evolution is clearly incompatible with the Bible.
TheBear said:Well hurray for Henry Morris!!!
Tell me - Is Henry Morris fallible or infallible? Is your own understanding of scripture fallible or infallible?
TheBear said:No.
You should be ashamed of the deceptive tactics, (shifting the focus of the study of our natural world, to things spiritual.)
TheBear said:Where did you get that?
TheBear said:This question right here, is a shining example of how you are unable/unwilling to even attempt to comprehend what is being said. These pre-conditioned and automatic biases, need to be removed if you really want to gain understanding of what others are saying.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (mat 24:35)Maccie said:Well, actually, no. What will remain is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
These are very good things, I agree. But they ultimately fall short of perfection since all things in the world are plagued by corruption, decay and death.Maccie said:And yes, I think there is perfection on this planet. A new born baby. The smile on the face of a child looking at his mother. Untouched snow, glittering in the sun. Newly hatched ducklings bobbing on the water after the mother duck. The hand of the one you love, warm in your hand.
Shall I go on?
Sojourner<>< said:It is not deception if it is true and it is not a tactic, it was a statement of the truth. I'm aware that it flies in the face of methodological naturalism, but this, in turn, flies in the face of Truth since the world was indeed created by supernatural means.
Last time I checked, we are in Origins Theology, not science. The Op wanted to know how YEC fits in, and this is what we are debating. If the Truth lies out of the bounds of science then that is where we must go. This may or may not be the answer she wanted, but it is the Word of God. We may never understand some of the most mysterious questions out there, so some things require a leap of faith.
If my statement that science is a human institution and is therefore fallible, imperfect and not guaranteed to perpetuate towards truth is actually a blatantly false analogy, then logically I would have to conclude that you don't believe that science is imperfect.
No offense taken.
TheBear said:Why do people like you continue to confuse the issue, by interjecting terms like 'truth', and mixing spiritural matters with studies of our natural world? Is it intentional, or are you really that blinded by dogma and bias?
Sojourner<>< said:Once again, no offense taken.
You should know better than that Christian.
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?