Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,196
- 7,477
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Do you know how to use Google? Use that to search for your answers.
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.
That is circular. What is the evidence?
I'll look it up, but why can't scientist reduplicate it in a lab with simple single celled creatures?
Right, because there is no evidence of either one.I agree. Science cannot include the Creator increasing energy to overcome entropy and injecting design. It is not in their scope of study.
For this Lover of God, it is through evolution that God Creates life forms.One of these days you , warden and others will take an interest in the science not scientism
If ever you do you will discover there is no single “ theory of evolution” , which is an atheist myth,
You can’t because it “ the theory of evolutin” doesn’t exist. It never has,
This statement speaks volumes.I seemingly know more than most of you!
I have to wait and see.Because, as I said in post #163: macro-evolution, speciation, cannot be directly observed since it happens on a massive time span other many generations of creatures in a population.
But an even better question is: even if they did do as you suggest, showing macro-evolution, would you accept it as evidence of such?
I have to wait and see.
Genetic comparisons can be tested.I assume you mean no scientific evidence that can be tested.
BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.Genetic comparisons can be tested.
The same principles for examining patterns of genetic similarity that let you infer paternity and family trees can be applied to separate extant species. This has been repeated for large and small scale variation.
Common ancestry and evolution would have to create a nested hierarchy, where as there is no reason for common design to create this pattern and even Lamarckian evolution or Lysenkoism would likely not have the same kind of remnants we find consistent with conventional evolution.
It's important to remember that the reason God's intervention isn't scientific isn't that an omnipotent God couldn't make the world the way it is... it's that it could be the explanation for literally anything, so it's impossible to test.BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.
Genetic comparisons can be tested.
The same principles for examining patterns of genetic similarity that let you infer paternity and family trees can be applied to separate extant species. This has been repeated for large and small scale variation.
Common ancestry and evolution would have to create a nested hierarchy, where as there is no reason for common design to create this pattern and even Lamarckian evolution or Lysenkoism would likely not have the same kind of remnants we find consistent with conventional evolution.
That is a very nice way to put it. My idea was that scientists could never measure God's input, since there is no earthly tool to do that. We can see it if we have faith, but it can't be quantified.It's important to remember that the reason God's intervention isn't scientific isn't that an omnipotent God couldn't make the world the way it is... it's that it could be the explanation for literally anything, so it's impossible to test.
Then you will need to define the term as to whether it includes speciation or not. You will also need to pick a new starting subject, as viruses are not considered to be living creatures and do not replicate in such a way as to be able to evolve in the sense that we are discussing here.Macro-evolution.
Not quite. What I was saying was that God's intervention (if any) need not be testable. It is an important point to make with creationists, that a fully explanatory naturalistic theory of evolution does not deny God's creative authorship of our being.BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.
Whether or not viruses are alive is still under debate. Many evolutionists want me to believe that life spontaneously formed from nonliving material. If going from nonliving material to living cells is not macro-evolution, then I am at a lost to know what to call it. I would be glad to learn a better term. Since viruses are “almost living” and single-celled organisms can mutate and reproduce rapidly, I thought evolution from viruses to protozoa was a more rational experiment than fish to amphibians. Maybe a protozoon to flatworm is better. My point was that observations of micro-evolution can be tested in a lab by producing repeated mutations in living organisms, but macro-evolution can only be observed and not tested experimentally, except by similar observations. One can produce dogs in various forms, but one cannot take a dog and turn it into a cat through genetic mutation in a lab. I had the pleasure of seeing a cow that was the result of trying to reproduce an Auroch. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a Auroch, but it did look like one. They just couldn’t bring the genes out of modern cattle DNA, because they are not there anymore.Then you will need to define the term as to whether it includes speciation or not. You will also need to pick a new starting subject, as viruses are not considered to be living creatures and do not replicate in such a way as to be able to evolve in the sense that we are discussing here.
I realize that many Christians and Jews believe in both evolution and God’s creation, but I haven’t seen a scientific theory of evolution that includes God. At best, they say God started the process and walked away. Maybe I missed something.Not quite. What I was saying was that God's intervention (if any) need not be testable. It is an important point to make with creationists, that a fully explanatory naturalistic theory of evolution does not deny God's creative authorship of our being.
It is generally called abiogenesis, a field of study distinct from evolutionary biology.Whether or not viruses are alive is still under debate. Many evolutionists want me to believe that life spontaneously formed from nonliving material. If going from nonliving material to living cells is not macro-evolution, then I am at a lost to know what to call it. I would be glad to learn a better term.
That is where the phylogenic tree comes into play. The domestic dog, Canis Familiaris is a member of the family Canidae. The domestic cat, Felis Catus, is a member of the family Felidae. It is a bit fantastical, but not impossible to suppose that some descendants of the domestic dog might evolve or be bred to the point that they resembled the domestic cat in their appearance and behavior, but they could never become members of the family Felidae. Dogs can never become cats. They might become very cat-like, but they can never actually be cats. Another way of thinking about it is this: My great grandfather was German, born in Hamburg. The question is, how many generations of my offspring will have to be born and pass away here in America before my great grandfather stops being German?Since viruses are “almost living” and single-celled organisms can mutate and reproduce rapidly, I thought evolution from viruses to protozoa was a more rational experiment than fish to amphibians. Maybe a protozoon to flatworm is better. My point was that observations of micro-evolution can be tested in a lab by producing repeated mutations in living organisms, but macro-evolution can only be observed and not tested experimentally, except by similar observations. One can produce dogs in various forms, but one cannot take a dog and turn it into a cat through genetic mutation in a lab.
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?