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.
miss_liz said:Ok, I might be wrong on this def. but here goes: macroevolution is the species evolution. Like, hmmm...how to explain what I mean...,where one species changes into another.
miss_liz said:""This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw-puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries, demonstrating that the diversity and early evolutionary history of mammals were much more complex than perceived less than a decade ago," he writes in a commentary."
Professor Thomas Martin said:Professor Thomas Martin This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw-puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries, demonstrating that the diversity and early evolutionary history of mammals were much more complex than perceived less than a decade ago,
miss_liz said:This mammal wasn't supposed to have been around yet...until that discovery, it was considered far too complex to have been around.
Well, as far as I know, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and have very similar DNA. I know it has something to do with family, kingdom, phyla, class, order...can't think of the rest now. I think species is on the bottom...LogicChristian said:I'd like to second that. What is your definition of species missliz?
Maybe it doesn't necessarily invalidate the fossils we have already found. But it will continue to 'shed light' on the problems with evolution. We, obviously, have not found all of the fossils. What happens if we continually find fossils too complex for their time? Then evolution of species (according to scientists) continually has to change in order to accomodate these new fossils.TheInstant said:Okay, maybe I misunderstood you. I thought when you said it wasn't "supposed to have been around yet" you were implying that the discovery went against evolutionary theory. If all you were saying is that it was more complex than the other discovered mammal fossils of that time period, then I don't disagree. I am curious, however, as to why you brought it up if it wasn't an argument against evolution? The fact that we haven't found fossils of all the organisms that existed and probably never will does not invalidate the fossils we have found.
Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.Silent Bob said:Emphasis mine. He doesn't talk about mammals he talks about their diversity and early evolutionary history. We thought it was less complex, it isn't. We were wrong, this is how science works.
I am amazed nobody mentioned the fact that a scientific theory never becomes a fact. In science theories are what we use to explain the facts, facts by themselves are pretty useless.
miss_liz said:Maybe it doesn't necessarily invalidate the fossils we have already found. But it will continue to 'shed light' on the problems with evolution. We, obviously, have not found all of the fossils. What happens if we continually find fossils too complex for their time? Then evolution of species (according to scientists) continually has to change in order to accomodate these new fossils.
Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.
That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.
miss_liz said:Well, as far as I know, a species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and have very similar DNA. I know it has something to do with family, kingdom, phyla, class, order...can't think of the rest now. I think species is on the bottom...
This is hardly a sign of weakness - that's exactly how science is supposed to work: new data is taken into account and scientific theories are constantly being refined to a greater and greater degree of accuracy and level of detail.miss_liz said:That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.
miss_liz said:Ok, this is sorta off topic, but....what is the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory? Teachers don't bother making a distinction.
miss_liz said:That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.
I don't which YECs you asked that of, but none of the ones I know would respond like that. If God personally revealed the ToE to me as His chosen way of bringing about life as we know it, well what kind of faith would I have if I told the Creator of the universe that I didn't like His answer?chaoschristian said:In my experience of asking this question to creationists the answer is generally "If God personally revealed to me that without a doubt the universe is billions of years old and the diversity of life on Earth, especially the origins of mankind, was the result of evolutionary processes, then I would loose my faith"
False. The Bible isn't always literal; Genesis however is.chaoschristian said:This type of response is especially prevalant among YECs. This is because, based on my observations, YECs submit to the following premises:
1. The Bible is the literal/indicative Word of God. It cannot be wrong. It cannot be anything other than literal/indicative.
True.chaoschristian said:2. Therefore the Bible is an accurate source of both history and science, but escpecially of history.
True.chaoschristian said:3. Since Jesus specifically refers to geneologies that trace back to Adam, and because Jesus specifically refers to the story of creation then both the geneologies are correct (and an accurate measure of time) and the story of creation is true as written in Genesis.
True.chaoschristian said:4. If the geneologies are incorrect and the story of creation is not true, then Jesus Christ is a liar.
True.chaoschristian said:5. If Jesus is a liar then the entire basis of faith, the substance of the Bible, is called into doubt. Without a reliable Bible there can be no faith.
True.chaoschristian said:If one desires to 'convert' a YEC over to evolutionary theory, then the starting point is not moutains of evidence regarding the theory itself...
t_w said:Well, I asked what 'scientific evidence' would convince you of evolution, not , 'what supernatural occurence would cause you to accept evolution' - an oxymoron, I thinkYou have misunderstood. The above was exactly my point - if the above happened that would convince me of creationism - I only added this example to give creationists an idea of what I am asking here. II really don't know how you misinterpreted my post so grossly as to think i was saying 'god coming down and creating a few animals' would cause a creationist to believe in evolution.
This is demonstrably untrue. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, then Jesus Christ, who died for the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve, died for an allegorical myth that never took place. Surely Jesus's actions require the Adam and Eve stroy to be true if they are to be so greatly acclaimed.
No, the above is demonstrably untrue. There is nothing in the idea of Jesus' dying for sinful mankind that requires a literal Adam and Eve.t_w said:This is demonstrably untrue. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, then Jesus Christ, who died for the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve, died for an allegorical myth that never took place. Surely Jesus's actions require the Adam and Eve stroy to be true if they are to be so greatly acclaimed.
vossler said:I don't which YECs you asked that of, but none of the ones I know would respond like that. If God personally revealed the ToE to me as His chosen way of bringing about life as we know it, well what kind of faith would I have if I told the Creator of the universe that I didn't like His answer?
I meant to comment on this earlier. You hit the nail right on the head with this observation.t_w said:This is demonstrably untrue. If Adam and Eve are allegorical, then Jesus Christ, who died for the sin brought into the world by Adam and Eve, died for an allegorical myth that never took place. Surely Jesus's actions require the Adam and Eve story to be true if they are to be so greatly acclaimed.
Very true!chaoschristian said:My experience has taught me that very rarely does overwhelming evidence convert the YEC. That's because it's first a theological issue and then a scientific issue.
I'm not nearly as rare as you make me out to be.chaoschristian said:Vossler, you are one of the rare exceptions that I've encountered thus far.
miss_liz said:That's one reason I have a problem with evolution...evidence keeps on popping up that requires the theory of evolution be 'mended'.
chaoschristian said:If one desires to 'convert' a YEC over to evolutionary theory, then the starting point is not moutains of evidence regarding the theory itself, but the slow process of convincing the YEC that faith can be maintained without a literal/indicative interpretive POV on the Bible. If a YEC can see that the truth of the Bible is as truthful whether its allegorical, metaphorical or indicative, then there is hope.
Now I know that to the atheists and other non-Christians that last bit might bring a chuckle. But if you keep it in perspective than I think the theory works.
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?