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.
yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.When I consider the human body and the nature of the universe (as discovered by astronomy), I understand how the universe and human beings are 'wonderfully made'.
His tools work much faster and better than what's in Darwin's toolbox.yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.
Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed.
You must be trying to kid me to say that evolution answers the appearance of design issues.
I find it laughable that intelligent scientists are so fixated on the evolutionary methodology that ScienceDaily can report: 'Researchers are providing a new explanation as to why life remained as little more than slime for a billion years, before rapidly diversifying in the 'Cambrian explosion of life' (source).
We have that choice OR human beings are made by God in his image. I know which evidence I'm going with.
Humans evolved from earlier primates.
What evolutionary presuppositions underlie cosmology, praytell? And paleontology? Archaeology? Geology?Historical science includes an examination of the historical evidence for the historical Jesus. Do you accept this?
Yes, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology are valid sciences, but I have to be very discerning in uncovering the presuppositions (often evolutionary) that underlie those pursuing research in those disciplines. Many assume evolutionary processes and seek to find them.
My 482 pp dissertation involved uncovering the presuppositions and methodology of an historical Jesus scholar. If I need to do it for him and people need to do it for my research, I must do it for your discipline and those in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology.
I will not fall for what scientists in paleontology, archaeology, and cosmology find without an investigation into their presumptions.
From what I've read of your posts here, you are not open to considering ALL of the evidence.
Oz
I'm not here to teach you how evolutionary biology works. If you want a starting point: Welcome to Evolution 101!
And then go from there...
Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are products of hundreds of millions of years of biological evolution.
yet you categorically deny to God the power to use evolution as His tool.
What evolutionary presuppositions underlie cosmology, praytell? And paleontology? Archaeology? Geology?
See the evidence for Creation & Intelligent Design (ID) here: Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
You didn't answer my questions. In case you missed them, here they are again: Who said? Who made those primates and the primates before them?
Anyone with a slight knowledge of biology knows that the human heart, lungs, kidneys and brains are exquisitely designed.
#1269 was Aman's post.False! See #1269, which probably I was writing when you wrote your post.
Nevertheless, I had given you not evidence to demonstrate that I categorically deny God's power to use evolution to create. I've never hinted at that. Are you going to apologise to me for the lies you here tell about my view?
Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.
These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original [assumption.] (There's cosmology and then there's real science).
The difference here is that my worldview is based on the biblical truth that God, the Creator, created the universe about 6,000 years ago. It was not the result of an accident or a quantum fluctuation of some imagined/postulated vacuum or a big bang of any sort. Rather it was the result of plan and purpose as God told us in the Bible.
Oz, you have to understand this. I’m not out here trying to land a “gotcha” with these questions. When I ask for evidence, I’m asking because I don’t know how you’re coming to the conclusions you’re coming to. It’s common for creationists to feel needled by these hard lines of questioning, but they’re necessary when what you’re saying goes against the consensus of the scientific community. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.This example demonstrates the evolutionary presuppositions in cosmology:
Within our solar system we have been able to send probes to make observations. For example, NASA’s Deep Impact probe1 shot a 370 kg copper bullet into a comet2 and measured the spectra3 of the ejected material. And the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Rosetta spacecraft landed a robotic lander, Philae, on a comet4 and made, for the first time, direct measurements of the surface constituents. These types of measurements, you could say, are very similar to what the experimentalists do in their laboratories. But the Rosetta mission’s objectives, excerpted from the ESA website, highlight the type of science involved (emphases added):
These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original (There's cosmology and then there's real science).
Rosetta’s prime objective is to help understand the origin and evolution of the Solar System. The comet’s composition reflects the composition of the pre-solar nebula out of which the Sun and the planets of the Solar System formed, more than 4.6 billion years ago. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by Rosetta and its lander will provide essential information to understand how the Solar System formed.
Your presuppositions, that you have demonstrated in this thread, seem to blind you to the evolutionary basis of, say, contemporary cosmology.
I've finished with providing evidence to you.
View attachment 213685
Oz
I thought by "evolutionary assumptions" you were referring to biological evolution, but apparently you're also including cosmic evolution. Makes a little more sense, but still wrong. The solar nebula model isn't an untestable assumption. It makes falsifiable predictions that are tested by collection of data on missions like Rosetta. Although it faces problems in some areas, it's the most widely-accepted model because it offers explanations for a variety of properties of the solar system. Seriously, do some research outside creationist websites every once and a while. You'd know this already.These are their basic underlying assumptions. This statement makes it clear that the scientists who carried out the mission believe that the solar system evolved out of a solar nebula originating more than 4.6 billion years ago. That is their untestable primary assumption. It is not testable by what they dig out of the surface of the comet, but rather they believe the measurements of that comet material will help them understand the origin of the solar system within their original (There's cosmology and then there's real science).
Again, cosmology is not based on an assumption of evolution, cosmic or otherwise. Physical cosmology is a multidisciplinary field of study that makes no more assumptions than the basic assumptions of science (https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions). It's obvious to all of us that you accuse scientists of making undue assumptions because you know you're doing it and you're trying to level the playing field. Stop embarrassing yourself.Your presuppositions, that you have demonstrated in this thread, seem to blind you to the evolutionary basis of, say, contemporary cosmology.
Well, you never started, but I can't say I'm surprised. Yawn.I've finished with providing evidence to you.
Here is a quote from your link:
Do you in fact accept that the 'Cambrian explosion' occurred approximately 530 million years ago, and therefore that biological diversity originated hundreds of millions of years before the origin of human beings and even the origin of primates?
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?