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.
The ToE is the strongest supported theory by evidence from many unrelated fields.If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years
(assumed) ... not known
Can you give us an example of what intelligent design look like?That means they should look like mutations.
You claim that science is based on beliefs demonstrates that you do not know the difference between scientific evidence and belief.yeah and science often bases their "beliefs" on theory.
There is a world of difference between a belief in a literal interpretation of genesis and affirming the over whelming scientific evidence for the ToE.I agree everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.
Your interpretation that Genesis is literal is what causes you confusion. The majority of Christians believe that their deity created the laws of nature to do the grunt work of evolution.
That science is ongoing is a feature not a bug.
An all powerful deity would have no problem creating the laws of nature to do that through evolution.
The ToE starts with evolution which, unlike intelligent design, the ToE is supported by an overwhelming consilience of evidence from many unrelated scientific fields.
The ToE is the strongest supported theory by evidence from many unrelated fields.
Can you give us an example of what intelligent design look like?
You claim that science is based on beliefs demonstrates that you do not know the difference between scientific evidence and belief.
There is a world of difference between a belief in a literal interpretation of genesis and affirming the over whelming scientific evidence for the ToE.
No, I didn't claim that. I laid out a specific argument for common descent that had nothing to do with the similarity of DNA sequences. In fact, the argument is entirely about the differences between DNA sequences, not their similarity.You claim there’s evidence for common origin and macroevolution because of the similarity of DNA sequences back to the trunk of one single tree of life.
Again, so what? We're supposed to be talking about evidence for macroevolution -- but it seems you'd rather not talk about that.Bingo!
That's what we're trying to decide. And to decide, we have to look at evidence for and against the idea that they are. I provided one piece (of many) that they are from the same family unit. You have not yet engaged that evidence. I thought you wanted evidence?humans and apes are not from the same family unit.
No, it's hypothesized -- it's an idea that we have to test with evidence. I provided some evidence to test the idea. The evidence supports it. Rather than try to rebut the evidence, or offer an alternative explanation for it that's consistent with creationism, all you've done is repeat your original claim and ignore the evidence.the "ancestry" across family units is assumed/theorized.
That's what we're trying to decide. And to decide, we have to look at evidence for and against the idea that they are. I provided one piece (of many) that they are from the same family unit. You have not yet engaged that evidence. I thought you wanted evidence?
No, it's hypothesized -- it's an idea that we have to test with evidence. I provided some evidence to test the idea. The evidence supports it. Rather than try to rebut the evidence, or offer an alternative explanation for it that's consistent with creationism, all you've done is repeat your original claim and ignore the evidence.
You are just regurgitating your literal interpretation of Genesis. The majority of Christians do not believe in a literal interpretation.no He would have a problem with it (he made them male & female within their own kind)... and thereby made it very clear in His Word ....
It's sad ... if ... the majority of christians believe that
When we look carefully at Genesis 1, in Hebrew or even in English, it is clear that God created everything in six literal (24-hour) days.
First, we are told that He created the earth in darkness and then created light. Then He called the light “day” and He called the darkness “night.” And then He said (in the original Hebrew) “and [there] was evening and [there] was morning, one day.” He repeated the same statement at the end of the second day through the sixth day.
So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Everywhere else in the Old Testament, when the Hebrew word for “day” (יוםֹ, yom) appears with “evening” or “morning” or is modified by a number (e.g., “sixth day” or “five days”), it always means a 24-hour day (and is taken literal) ... and nobody claims that it means anything different.
people are compromising what is written in Genesis ... and no I won't jump off that bridge just because perhaps many are.
Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest … It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:13, 15, 17; emphases added. See also Exodus 20:8–10).
Obviously referring back to Genesis .... are we not to take it literally here? but yet discount it in Genesis? Of course not.
Perhaps that is what you believe you see when you look in the mirror. When I look in the mirror I see a combination of my parents genes plus the results of the mutations they passed on to me.Sure ... look in the mirror ... that's one example.
I have no idea of what your point is.fact - a thing that is known or proved to be true
there are no facts that show cross overs (capable of reproducing and reproducing) outside of family units .... this has not been proven to be true.
We see family units that reproduce and then those also capable of reproducing .... outside of that it is theory ... not factual.
Who has made such a claim?one example ...
Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.
This seems to suggest you have some expectation of what a mutation ought to look like - so what would you expect a mutation to look like?If shared ancestry is true, these differences result from lots of mutations that have accumulated in the two lineages over millions of years
(assumed) ... not known
That means they should look like mutations.
one example ...
Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.
We have fully formed human and a fully formed ape why is it that offspring is not possible? Answer that without using theory.
Because thy are NOT from the same family unit ... and that is the real/true evidence that we see.
It seems that what you call a 'family unit' is what scientists commonly call a 'species', i.e. creatures that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. In biological taxonomy, 'family' is a higher level division that includes many species.one example ...
Show me a human that can mate with a ape and produce offspring.
We have fully formed human and a fully formed ape why is it that offspring is not possible? Answer that without using theory.
Because thy are NOT from the same family unit ... and that is the real/true evidence that we see.
KJV Dictionary Definition: kindIt seems that what you call a 'family unit' is what scientists commonly call a 'species', i.e. creatures that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring. In biological taxonomy, 'family' is a higher level division that includes many species.
KJV Dictionary Definition: kind
kind
KIND, n.
1. Race; genus; generic class; as in mankind or humankind. In technical language, kind answers to genus.
One doesn't need a Harvard education to understand what theory is.
I think Ken Ham referred to it as family. Are you saying there are no difficulties in the ranks of taxonomy nomenclature?It also has race and generic class as a definition. So are white people one kind and black people another?
Kind is a useless term in science, hence why it's not used.
I think Ken Ham referred to it as family. Are you saying there are no difficulties in the ranks of taxonomy nomenclature?
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?