The charge of denying science is a bunch of malarkey. It is scientism that is the issue. In addition, science by its own definition is provisional and has a limited say about the universe. Then we have faulty human reasoning of its observations.
Me neither. You need to speak to the fundamentalists who post here about that.Freddy:
But I think the issue is it isn’t my call. Or really anyone’s “call.” It’s that we are slowly reverse engineering how God did it. It doesn’t matter how He decided to do it. The Bible isn’t a science book, it’s a spiritual one. That means some things may or may not be literal. I’m not understanding the conflict between evolution and the Bible?
For the life me, I can not understand the refusal to accept the science…especially in a religion that loves science and has contributed so much to our knowledge. Why the obstinate refusal to accept the evidence and theory? Are they so afraid of the science that their entire faith will crumble before it? They see their brothers and sisters in the faith having no problems with evolution. They see God in the process. They know it makes no difference to their salvation.
I think that everyone, apart from the usual suspects, is equally bemused.
Post of the thread right here.
I have, it’s just another speculation.
I’m a mixture of my parents and i’m different from them because of the genetic mixture, not because of mutations.
It is sudden because it presented many new body plans.
Darwin knew nothing about genetics
Hold up. This sounds eerily familiar - it’s like what various atheists and agnostics say about miracles, Gospel narratives, etc… “It’s just something people say happened, there’s no evidence.” It’s equally ridiculous here.
Mutations kills organisms, it doesn’t help them stay alive.
It is not a ‘speculation’. It is a repeated observation. If you see a car drive past you are not speculating that it drove past. You are observing it.FiveLinden:
I have, it’s just another speculation.
So I guess you don’t really believe this and have been wasting our time?
Some observations are just hazy, like we are told that we are transitional. We are on transit to be a new species- is this the observation you are talking about?
No, after repeatedly observing the devastation on cancer patients, i just can’t trust random processes.
Can you name the generations between Abraham and David as given in Luke 3? Are those generations all named in Matthew 1:1? Do you really have to ask such an obvious question?
One must consider that anyone who sees a 30,000 year old date from C14 dating and yet insists on a 6,000 year old earth is misusing the evidence. To a YEC both 30,000 year old ans 65 million year old dates are equally wrong. You cannot base you arguments on dates you think are wrong.
The average human has about 70 mutations, not many but some. Over time those mutations accumulate. I am glad you agree that you have genetic differences from both your parents.
That is not “sudden”, because “sudden” relates to time elapsed. Millions of years is not sudden. Perhaps you mean something like punctuated equilibrium?
Which is why genetics was added to the theory of evolution between about 1910 and 1930. The theory has changed a lot since 1859.
We had this conversation before. There’s no such thing as accumulation of genetic variation and i remember posing the idea of the primate tail. If the tail developed through a series of accumulated beneficial mutations, then what can we say about its recession?
You can identify it with fancy names but is evidence against and not for evolution. I call it sudden appearance of body plans with no prior history of development.
Yeah, it was wrong then and it is wrong now even with the patch work until it is demonstrated.