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.
It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.great. so we can explain anything in biology by creation too. and thus we dont need evolution to explain it.
He's saying that a designer wouldn't make the mutations directly. The designer could still make the DNA, and mutations could pop up in successive generations. A created individual wouldn't have mutations pretty much by definition.
It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.
It's not an explanation unless you can tell us how God did it.
Doesn’t trying to eliminate a duly designated side of a debate, based on the grounds that we should know exactly how GOD achieved His creation, beyond what we are told and able to discern from available scripture, seem a little bit ‘discussion defeating?’ No doubt, some would like that. ‘God-did-it’ puts most of the explaining on evolution, sure, but after all, it is the ‘Johnny-come-lately’ in this difference in reasoning. Cut us some slack.In order to have an explanation for this, we'd need to know how the designer would have done a such a thing. "Goddidit" by itself isn't an explanation.
Doesn’t trying to eliminate a duly designated side of a debate, based on the grounds that we should know exactly how GOD achieved His creation, beyond what we are told and able to discern from available scripture, seem a little bit ‘discussion defeating?’
Did he say he knew "exactly how GOD achieved" anything?If people want to claim there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer, then we need that explanation. Otherwise you're more than welcome to tell xianghua that that just isn't the case.
Did he say he knew "exactly how GOD achieved" anything?
great. so we can explain anything in biology by creation too. and thus we dont need evolution to explain it.
I'll let him defend his own statements.He said exactly this:
Do you think that is a true statement? Is there a scientific theory of creation on par with the current theory of evolution in terms of explanatory power?
If yes, then surely you can point me to where I will find such a thing. (And no, it's not in the Bible. I've read it.)
Yes, there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer/creator, but you won't 'see' it in a science book.If people want to claim there is a bonafide explanation for creation that invokes a designer, then we need that explanation.
I thought it had already been established that man had no scientific theory of creation.Is there a scientific theory of creation on par with the current theory of evolution in terms of explanatory power?
None of man's scientific theory or explanatory power there, but you apparently overlooked the answer.If yes, then surely you can point me to where I will find such a thing. (And no, it's not in the Bible. I've read it.)
None of man's scientific theory or explanatory power there, but you apparently overlooked the answer.
Sure, you can make a God of the gaps explanation.
It won't count as a scientific theory though, because scientific theories need to be falsifiable, and a vague intelligent designer isn't falsifiable.
Man made functional systems are the result of design. You are trying to prove that naturally occurring functional systems are also the result of design. You can't assume it as a premise.its not god of the gaps. we know that complex functional systems are the result of design.
No, the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, is a conclusion of inductive logic. It can only be confirmed, not proven. Only the conclusions of deductive logic can be proven. Requiring any scientific theory to be proven is a violation of the rules of logic.evolution on the other hand cant be proven at all.
They can be attributed to ID, but you haven not explained the mechanism by which the "designer" brings them about.but you said that only eolution can explain what we find in nature. so now we see that it can be explained by id too.
its not god of the gaps. we know that complex functional systems are the result of design. evolution on the other hand cant be proven at all.
first- evolution isnt falsifiable too. secondly- we can also prove things in science and not just disprove them.
No, you can look for evidences of intentional manufacture--tool marks, processed or non-natural materials, etc.--from those you may be able to conclude design. "Indications of contrivance" is what Paley called such evidence. Just the fact that what you found is a complex mechanism is not evidence of design.irrelevant. if i find a watch on mars i dont need a machanim to conclude that watch was designed.
realy? so if we go back in time and i had a theory that the earth is a round. there is no way to prove my theory?We can't prove scientific theories.
. All sorts of things could falsify evolution theory. Humans and apatosaurs sharing tea together in the fossil record.
You could, maybe, but people who understand how evolution works could not.realy? so if we go back in time and i had a theory that the earth is a round. there is no way to prove my theory?
even such a fossil will not falsify evolution. we can claim for anomaly or push back human origin. no problem for evolution.
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?