Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
sandy_mcd wrote:No, science can't explain everything. [Although some scientists may think so.]
A trivial example. Suppose God created the universe 6000 years ago with the appearance of being billions of years old. How can science distinguish between such a universe and one actually billions of years old ?
It can't in my opinion, but still, science IS NOT perfected and most likely never will be. That is when faith comes in .
Hi Bgood, can you give us a good definition for what constitutes a species?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Hard to say where the border should be, what changes can be attributed to micro evolution and therefore can be thought to come from a single form created by God.
That's exactly right. Hard to say, isn't it? Esspecially hard to say when there is no evidence for the intermediate creatures which evolution predicts would have to have existed. I feel I've made the point I was trying to, which is to show that evolution cannot be considered 'fact' by default and IMO the evidence in support of it is underwhelming. You obviously still disagree which is fine; we can let science take its course. Eventually science will find the truth and if it turns out to be evolution then so be it.
You missed my point. You stated that a mutation was just another form of a frog.
Felgar wrote:Again though, they're still frogs.
But when you examine all the different amphibians you can't easily say that some animals came from frogs and others came from some other form. There is no clear cut line because morphological differences exist throughout the whole spectrum of existing forms.
In other words micro-evolution cannot account for the difference between a pipidae and an American Bull Frog. So you have to have a point at which minor changes are allowed and not allowed. Otherwise you are allowing macro-evolution.
Read my post again, I said it would be hard for you to determine "what changes can be attributed to micro evolution and therefore can be thought to come from a single form created by God"
Thinker wrote:BGood is using photos and articles that "convince" you that evolution is fact. The pictures prove nothing. If it were proof, why aren't ALL scientists saying that evolution is a FACT? Because it isn't, at least not in this moment if it were indeed true. However, Felgar makes the point about God. You still have to explain how and why EVERYTHING came about like it did. As we can study the naturalness on earth and elsewhere, it still doesn't explain why it happened. I see life and I see that we as humans were meant in this record of history to fit in with nature. I find concepts proposed by scientists what we will be like in millions of years more utterly nonsense. I mean for one thing, why is it shown that prayer is PROVEN to work? My dad gets secular medical journals that have double blind studies done that show prayer works, and not just to ones self, but from one person to another. I have seen things that convince me that the supernatural indeed exists that science cannot explain but rejects anyways just because they can't explain it. I think, and a public majority according to articles found on news websites, believe that people are starting to turn from the scientific because this is more of a political war than where we came from. I find science in my opinion is trying to speed up science and explain everything as quickly as they can. I found this to be convincing once ID was strongly introduced, and ever since, literally everything and everywhere I go is publicly displaying all things evolution without God, or more simply put, No God. Science to me seems like the enemy and I think eventually if nothing is done about it, the war is going to get very intense more so over what we have already seen.
No thinker I am not trying to prove evolution is right.
I am trying to show Felgar that evolution does not claim pink glowing frogs arose straight from fruit flies. Remeber that was his characterization.
There is a logical basis from which the Theory is formed.
You may or may not choose to beleive it, however I am unhappy at the way Felgar is trying to misrepresent evolution. One must realize that the Theory must make some sort of sense for so many to beleive it as fact.
I capitalize theory because it is not being used as in the vernacular but in the jargon of science.
Last edited by BGoodForGoodSake on Sun Nov 06, 2005 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
August wrote:Hi Bgood, can you give us a good definition for what constitutes a species?
Sure a species is a group of organisms which normally (or are capable of) interbreed with one another. And create viable offspring
Or for single cell non-sexually reproducing organisms, a lineage of organisms.
Of course this becomes blurry when one deals with a ring species where A breeds with B, and B breeds with C, but C does not interbreed with A. This for most is considered a single species with extreme limit speciation occuring. If for some reason B dies out speciation will be final. But as it stands they are considered a single species.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Sure a species is a group of organisms which normally (or are capable of) interbreed with one another. And create viable offspring
Or for single cell non-sexually reproducing organisms, a lineage of organisms.
Of course this becomes blurry when one deals with a ring species where A breeds with B, and B breeds with C, but C does not interbreed with A. This for most is considered a single species with extreme limit speciation occuring. If for some reason B dies out speciation will be final. But as it stands they are considered a single species.
Thanks.
Couple of questions....Are Poodles and Great Danes considered seperate species for the interbreeding reason?
As for the single cell organisms, how is that falsified or tested?
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Sure a species is a group of organisms which normally (or are capable of) interbreed with one another. And create viable offspring
Or for single cell non-sexually reproducing organisms, a lineage of organisms.
Of course this becomes blurry when one deals with a ring species where A breeds with B, and B breeds with C, but C does not interbreed with A. This for most is considered a single species with extreme limit speciation occuring. If for some reason B dies out speciation will be final. But as it stands they are considered a single species.
Thanks.
Couple of questions....Are Poodles and Great Danes considered seperate species for the interbreeding reason?
As for the single cell organisms, how is that falsified or tested?
No, because they are akin to a ring species. A poodle can breed with a medium breed which in turn can breed with a great dane. However the theory goes, given enough time and isolation speciation could occur...
As for single celled organisms, they are classified by morphology, and more importantly their biochemistry, and conditions under which they grow. This is especially true of bacteria because they are all so similar in shape.
Last edited by BGoodForGoodSake on Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thinker wrote:BGood is using photos and articles that "convince" you that evolution is fact. The pictures prove nothing. If it were proof, why aren't ALL scientists saying that evolution is a FACT? Because it isn't, at least not in this moment if it were indeed true. However, Felgar makes the point about God. You still have to explain how and why EVERYTHING came about like it did. As we can study the naturalness on earth and elsewhere, it still doesn't explain why it happened. I see life and I see that we as humans were meant in this record of history to fit in with nature. I find concepts proposed by scientists what we will be like in millions of years more utterly nonsense. I mean for one thing, why is it shown that prayer is PROVEN to work? My dad gets secular medical journals that have double blind studies done that show prayer works, and not just to ones self, but from one person to another. I have seen things that convince me that the supernatural indeed exists that science cannot explain but rejects anyways just because they can't explain it. I think, and a public majority according to articles found on news websites, believe that people are starting to turn from the scientific because this is more of a political war than where we came from. I find science in my opinion is trying to speed up science and explain everything as quickly as they can. I found this to be convincing once ID was strongly introduced, and ever since, literally everything and everywhere I go is publicly displaying all things evolution without God, or more simply put, No God. Science to me seems like the enemy and I think eventually if nothing is done about it, the war is going to get very intense more so over what we have already seen.
No thinker I am not trying to prove evolution is right.
I am trying to show Felgar that evolution does not claim pink glowing frogs arose straight from fruit flies. Remeber that was his characterization.
There is a logical basis from which the Theory is formed.
You may or may not choose to beleive it, however I am unhappy at the way Felgar is trying to misrepresent evolution. One must realize that the Theory must make some sort of sense for so many to beleive it as fact.
I capitalize theory because it is not being used as in the vernacular but in the jargon of science.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:One must realize that the Theory must make some sort of sense for so many to beleive it as fact.
The theory can make sense in the way evolutionists have constructed it themselves, but it is still a theory, and although it may be convincing, it is still not a fact. I see it as a great deception. The devil's greatest form of hiding is through skeptics.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:One must realize that the Theory must make some sort of sense for so many to beleive it as fact.
The theory can make sense in the way evolutionists have constructed it themselves, but it is still a theory, and although it may be convincing, it is still not a fact. I see it as a great deception. The devil's greatest form of hiding is through skeptics.
This is true Thinker, but you need to understand it is a scientific theory.
This means there are facts which support the theory. Not just a hunch or an idea. You are using the word theory as in the vernacular(every day speech), in science the word theory can be defined as [An idea in which all the evidence thus far has shown that it is the most likely candidate for truth].
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
aa118816 wrote:God does and the Bible says he creates through evolution. Any one who reads the Bible understands this fact. The problem for strict evolutionists that the Bible says that Kinds do not cross. The reason that there is a lot of support for ID and creationists is that science has never shown one example of a kind crossing phylogenic lines. This is a fact. So, we have evolution underneath the level of kinds and special creation above the level of kinds.
I was just curious. COuld you tell me where the Bible says that God creates through evolution?
I was under the impression that God created everything in seven days and then after that, evolution took place and resulted in what we have now. Is this wrong?
But there is evidence of new species emerging every year. I do not believe that humans came from apes or birds from lizards = macroevolution. But i do believe in mutations and natural causes that separate organisms into new species (such as allotropic and sympatric speciation), which happens even now = microevolution. I would say that there is a lot of evidence that supports microevolution.
Could you elaborate on your answer other than "Yes"? THe link you gave had an error.
.
