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 sounds like faith in stubborn unreason on your part.We went around this block about 100 posts ago. We obviously disagree, and I don't think doing it all again will help.
Maybe there has been special divine intervention, but macro-evolution has been tested and there appears to be no need for divine intervention or any evidence for it. Theologically, there would be no reason for it, either.Maybe macro-evolution and abiogenesis can't be tested because there is divine intervention.
As I pointed out before, the testing I was referring to was to duplicate the process of macro-evolution in a laboratory, which a couple of posters have admitted is impossible because of time or complexity. So you shift the meaning of testing to mathematical modeling and observation and call it proof. The modeling is helpful in studying macro-evolution without divine intervention, but it is not at the level of proof. The following is an article that gives a good explanation of the various problems and how they are trying to overcome them: Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of Variation - PMCPeople have pointed out how it has been tested... an your reply is that there's disagreement, but no explanation as to why the disagreement is reasonable.
Just because you prefer an answer doesn't make it more likely.
Genetics, fossils, geology and physics are all very real and very useful outside of demonstrating the facts that support the theory of evolution.
That's a very interesting article, lucid and comprehensive. But it doesn't make your point, I think, Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.As I pointed out before, the testing I was referring to was to duplicate the process of macro-evolution in a laboratory, which a couple of posters have admitted is impossible because of time or complexity. So you shift the meaning of testing to mathematical modeling and observation and call it proof. The modeling is helpful in studying macro-evolution without divine intervention, but it is not at the level of proof. The following is an article that gives a good explanation of the various problems and how they are trying to overcome them: Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of Variation - PMC
I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.That's a very interesting article, lucid and comprehensive. But it doesn't make your point, I think, Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.
You will never have proof. Scientific theories are never proven.I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.
You are absolutely right, but theories can be refined and tested to the point they can be practically used. If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab, we would probably do something terrible with it, but I would like to see it. Until that day, I will continue to believe God initiated and controls evolution.You will never have proof. Scientific theories are never proven.
Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab...
Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.
View attachment 357550
Source....
That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.
View attachment 357550
Source....
That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.
The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.Macro evolution is much more than a probable theory. It is widely regarded as a well-established concept in evolutionary biology.
Being skeptical is part of science because it ensures that conclusions are based on evidence and sound reasoning rather than assumptions or untested beliefs, but if you want to falsify a scientific theory you need to demonstrates the theory's predictions or explanations to be incorrect.The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.
I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.
Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.
View attachment 357550
Source....
That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.
The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.
"True" and "untrue" don't come into it. When a theory of disease with better predictive power than humors came along, humors were discarded.The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.
Which is the case with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has tremendous predictive powers and wide and profitable application in the applied life sciences. Your theory has no predictive power whatever. You will never see agribusiness giving it up, Too much money is involved. Stalin tried outlawing it, Soviet agriculture collapsed and tens of thousands died of starvation.You are absolutely right, but theories can be refined and tested to the point they can be practically used.
So do most theists. However your particular theory of it is based on a narrow sectarian theology which has not got much of a footing even within Christendom.If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab, we would probably do something terrible with it, but I would like to see it. Until that day, I will continue to believe God initiated and controls evolution.
What grounds do you have for thinking that the theory may be false? Specifically, what is the evidence against it?That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.
That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.
inquiring minds wonder, but never yet got aWhat grounds do you have for thinking that the theory may be false? Specifically, what is the evidence against it?
I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.
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?