What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[eleos1954]

The theory of Evolution is not against God more than the law of gravity is.

To explain how things work in our Universe is not ruling out the Creator of the universe. I can explain how the mobile phone works, but it does not mean I ruled out its designer and manufacturer.

Macro evolution theory is very certainly against which is scripturally taught.

 

[Ophiolite]

Something not observed but conjectured.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific source.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? @pitabread has provided links to useful introductions to a subject which you appear largely ignorant of. Wikipedia articles generally contain excellent links that support the topics in the articles. You have been shown the water trough. It is your choice if you choose not to drink. If you choose not to don't be surprised if your future remarks are treated indifferently.

 

[46AND2]

yeah ... their "methodology" regarding the supernatural is to create THEORIES!

No. Their methodology regarding the supernatural is to ignore it altogether. Theories can only be developed for things that can be tested.

 

[solid_core]

Macro evolution theory is very certainly against which is scripturally taught.

So is the fact that we think in brains. Scripturally we think in our bellies.

Scriptures were not dictated by God, human authors used their world views to describe theological truths like monoteism, sin, coming of Christ etc.

 

[46AND2]

Well, I believe in natural selection...this also occurs in microevolution.

I've been listening to Dr. James Tour and I just find the whole DNA and cell science very interesting.

I used to believe in evolution. I wonder if there's anybody that NEVER did. I just started thinking about it in a logical way and I cannot come to the conclusion that all this came about all by itself with no help.

Even if gas caused the BB...where did the gas come from?

And if aliens made us...where did THEY come from?
There just doesn't seem to be an answer other than something must have made us...if it's God, so be it.
I do believe that God, or some spirit, made us, and space, and time, all at the same moment.

I've heard scientists say that time came into being at the same moment that the BB happened. So, how could there NOT be time??

It's all very fascinating.

And if god made us...where did HE come from?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He affirmed that Adam and Noah were real.

And Paul preached the Good News.

I would not call the mention of Noah an affirmation. It was more on the order of saying "she is as old as the hills". And worse yet since we no that there was nothing even close to the Flood of Noah it could be used by non-Christians to argue that it is evidence that Jesus was just a man. Treating it as a literary tool takes away that objection. I would have to double check on he affirmed Adam's existence, but that has the same problem. There are many Christians that do not take Genesis literally at all.

 

[pitabread]

Macro evolution theory is very certainly against which is scripturally taught.

Not really. There is nothing in the Bible that explicitly says "species didn't evolve".

Even some forms of creationism (such as Young Earth creationism) rely on rapid macro evolutionary events for the emergence of higher taxa.

 

[eleos1954]

The scientific methodology relies on testing natural explanations, not supernatural ones. In methodological naturalism, the universe itself is assumed to be an objective basis for testing competing ideas.

As I said, scientific inquiry makes zero claims one way or another about the supernatural. It's outside of the realm of science.

is assumed

I rest my case ;o)

Evolution is a THEORY to explain the supernatural.

People of faith and evolutionists agree ... whatever happened ... happened out in the cosmos .... and the cosmos is so vast .... and can not be throughly tested scientifically and never will be .... it can only be THEORIZED.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some. For instance, the theory that DNA rained out of the sky into the ocean so that life would be possible is hilarious.

That is not a theory. That would fall under the category of Creationist Strawman Arguments.

 

[pitabread]

I rest my case ;o)

Evolution is a THEORY to explain the supernatural.

People of faith and evolutionists agree ... whatever happened ... happened out in the cosmos .... and the cosmos is so vast .... and can not be throughly tested scientifically and never will be .... it can only be THEORIZED.

I'm not sure what "case" you are resting, but you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote.

I also unsure why you keep capitalizing the word "theory" although I suspect it doesn't mean what you think it means in the context of science.

And yes, the universe is assumed to be objective. If it isn't then all bets are off.

Most creationists in my experience reject an objective universe and consequently have no real means with which to test their ideas.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I rest my case ;o)

Evolution is a THEORY to explain the supernatural.

People of faith and evolutionists agree ... whatever happened ... happened out in the cosmos .... and the cosmos is so vast .... and can not be throughly tested scientifically and never will be .... it can only be THEORIZED.

Now it appears that you are conflating the theory of evolution with the Big Bang Theory. Those are two incredibly different ideas.

Evolution does not depend on the Big Bang Theory. It does not even depend on abiogenesis. And be careful. Moving the goalposts is a tacit admission that one was wrong about an idea.

 

[eleos1954]

So is the fact that we think in brains. Scripturally we think in our bellies.

Scriptures were not dictated by God, human authors used their world views to describe theological truths like monoteism, sin, coming of Christ etc.

I don't understand your brain/stomach statement that's your opinion or assumption ... fine.

 

[eleos1954]

I'm not sure what "case" you are resting, but you've completely misinterpreted what I wrote.

I also unsure why you keep capitalizing the word "theory" although I suspect it doesn't mean what you think it means in the context of science.

And yes, the universe is assumed to be objective. If it isn't then all bets are off.

Most creationists in my experience reject an objective universe and consequently have no real means with which to test their ideas.

your ok basing on assumptions ... fine.

 

[solid_core]

I don't understand your brain/stomach statement that's your opinion or assumption ... fine.

Bible says that our thinking and emotions take place in our belly.

Scientifically its not true.

So now that... will we deny we have brains or will we throw away our Bibles? No. We must rightly divide the purpose and goals of both Scriptures and science.

Scriptures doe not teach science, but theology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The authors of the (Berkley) study were at least dealing with one of the glaring holes in the theory. Mainly, an advanced cryptological system (DNA/RNA) is required first before life can exist. Now they claim that DNA/RNA - "are simply nucleotide proteins" whistling past the fact that they are in fact coded instructions no matter how "simple" their biological make up is and that in each organism the code is so complex that it contains the instructions for creating every cell and organ in its body. The DNA inside a liver cell, won't cause the liver to produce a skin cell or a kidney cell. Even a single celled organism is incredibly complex. It eats, poops and reproduces and all of the information which allows it to do so is driven by the DNA.

So they came up with the idea that the DNA came first (it has to) and that it rained down from the clouds into the ocean and thus the first organisms were created. It isn't possible for evolution to have produced DNA. It requires a designer.

No, RNA came first and that is abiogenesis, not evolution. RNA will self form. RNA can self replicate, that did not have to come first either. There are still problems with abiogenesis, but having unanswered questions is not evidence against an idea, nor are they "holes".

 

[pitabread]

your ok basing on assumptions ... fine.

When it comes to assuming the universe is objective, sure. After all, I have no reason to think otherwise and if it were not objective then it doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s God-breathed.

No, it claims that undefined "scripture" is God breathed. To apply that to the entire Bible is a bit of a stretch, especially parts written after that. It also does not say that it is correct, only God breathed" or inspired. It only claims that it is of use in teaching etc. in that verse.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You're thinking of Mitochondrial Eve. Contrary to the naming, she wasn't the first human woman. Rather this is the name given to the most recent common female ancestor in the human population.

She was neither the first human woman nor would she have been the only human woman at the time. You can read more here: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

I'm posting this because it explains what the first female human actually means.

Thanks.

Not the only woman[edit]
One common misconception surrounding mitochondrial Eve is that since all women alive today descended in a direct unbroken female line from her, she must have been the only woman alive at the time.[42][46] However, nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below tens of thousands. Other women living during Eve's time may have descendants alive today but not in a direct female line.[citation needed]

Not a fixed individual over time[edit]
The definition of mitochondrial Eve is fixed, but the woman in prehistory who fits this definition can change. That is, not only can our knowledge of when and where Mitochondrial Eve lived change due to new discoveries, but the actual mitochondrial Eve can change. The mitochondrial Eve can change, when a mother-daughter line comes to an end. It follows from the definition of Mitochondrial Eve that she had at least two daughters who both have unbroken female lineages that have survived to the present day. In every generation mitochondrial lineages end – when a woman with unique mtDNA dies with no daughters. When the mitochondrial lineages of daughters of mitochondrial Eve die out, then the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" shifts forward from the remaining daughter through her matrilineal descendants, until the first descendant is reached who had two or more daughters who together have all living humans as their matrilineal descendants. Once a lineage has died out it is irretrievably lost and this mechanism can thus only shift the title of "Mitochondrial Eve" forward in time.[citation needed]

Because mtDNA mapping of humans is very incomplete, the discovery of living mtDNA lines which predate our current concept of "Mitochondrial Eve" could result in the title moving to an earlier woman. This happened to her male counterpart, "Y-chromosomal Adam," when older Y lines from Africa were discovered.[citation needed]

source: Mitochondrial Eve - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not in the slightest. The theory of evolution simply explains the mechanisms for what we observe in biological populations: how they change over time and the patterns that emerge therein.

Faith isn't required; just a willingness to learn and understand the science.

I do believe some get evolution mixed up with the ORIGIN OF LIFE....

I see this as being two distinct categories.

Evolution could even be proven to be true....
but how did it all begin --- that's my interest.

 

[eleos1954]

When it comes to assuming the universe is objective, sure. After all, I have no reason to think otherwise and if it were not objective then it doesn't really matter, does it?

The universe is neither subjective or objective, it just IS ... and science creates theories in an attempt to explain it. Many many many different scientific theories ... MANY