- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,977
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
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 think you did about as good a job as Richard Dawkins would explaining the meaning of Christmas ...
With respect, owg, you really don't understand evolution. The individual creature itself does not change. The population to which it belongs changes over time.This is exactly what happens. Godidit. Evolution holds that the creature can change itself using it own resources. My whole arguement is for changes (if any) at the hand of God. Apart from God there isn't any. What TE's have done is borrow the scientific model of change, Evolution, and applied it to God's creation.
owg
My point is that so called natural processes aren't natural at all but supernatural and are purposefully guided by God.
This is exactly what happens. Godidit. Evolution holds that the creature can change itself using it own resources.
I suppose it is a matter of perspective. Augustine made exactly the opposite conclusion---that all supernatural processes are really natural.
We admit that what is contrary to the ordinary course of human experience is commonly spoken of as contrary to nature. .... But God, the Author and Creator of all natures does nothing contrary to nature; for what is done by Him who appoints all natural order and measure and proportion must be natural in every case.~~Reply to Faustus the Manichean 26.3
Although you and Augustine seem to be poles apart, I think you are actually agreeing with each other. You call all God's doings supernatural--even those we ordinarily call natural; and Augustine calls all God's doings natural--even those we ordinarily call supernatural.
Where you agree, it seems to me, is that in God a distinction of natural and supernatural is unwarranted. Whether natural or supernatural, it is all God's creative and purposeful work.
That is something any TE would agree with.
But the creature's resources come from God. And its use of those resources is guided by God. It is empowered by God to adapt, just as an individual is empowered by God to mature. I don't see the problem here.
My point is that so called natural processes aren't natural at all but supernatural and are purposefully guided by God.
"Theistic evloution" is an oxymoron.
Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!The population to which it belongs changes over time.
Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!
So the first step evolutionists need to take is describe the common ancestor so we know what kind of descendants his species is capable of producing in the first place before they can even continue with their story. Then the next step is to show that it's even possible for the male and female of that species to breed humans descendants before they can even talk about populations.
Sorry, but no population can do what no member of that population can do. For example, if no male and female giraffe can breed humans descendants, then populations of giraffes certainly can't breed human descendants!
So the first step evolutionists need to take is describe the common ancestor so we know what kind of descendants his species is capable of producing in the first place before they can even continue with their story. Then the next step is to show that it's even possible for the male and female of that species to breed humans descendants before they can even talk about populations.
Do you seriously expect a more informed response beyond "birds and beesQuestion 1 Do you know the difference between breeding hybrids and cladistic speciation? You say a lot about who can't breed what, but most evolutionary change involves speciation not hybridization. So can you describe what speciation is and how it happens? Shouldn't be too difficult. Scientists regularly observe speciation in their labs.
Question 2 Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? It's very common actually. With asexual reproduction you don't need to worry about what males and females can do. Along the same line have you ever heard about hermaphroditic species? Individuals in these species are both male and female.
Not. Linear.
Nested. Tree. Model.
Question 1 Do you know the difference between breeding hybrids and cladistic speciation? You say a lot about who can't breed what, but most evolutionary change involves speciation not hybridization. So can you describe what speciation is and how it happens? Shouldn't be too difficult. Scientists regularly observe speciation in their labs.
Question 2 Have you ever heard of asexual reproduction? It's very common actually. With asexual reproduction you don't need to worry about what males and females can do. Along the same line have you ever heard about hermaphroditic species? Individuals in these species are both male and female.
Sorry but hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile since they depend on the exact parents to breed them. Thus they can't breed any offspring, much less large populations of their own!
Sorry but hybrids are almost always infertile or sterile since they depend on the exact parents to breed them. Thus they can't breed any offspring, much less large populations of their own!
So you're free to call yourself an animal if you like. But that can never make apes, monkeys, lizards, elephants, giraffes, or fictitious animals capable of breeding with humans or exchanging genes with humans. So an animal can never pass along his genes to humans nor can his genes change into humans because the human imagination wants them to. So calling a human an animal is a waste of time.
That says nothing. So please explain how whole populations can do what not even one couple in that population can do?Or is the story of evolution not only based on events that don't happen in reality and that no one in history can verify but also on contradictions as well? It appears so.
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?