W
whatistrue
Guest
Using what process? When did it happen? How long did it take?
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
If you don’t believe in the Supernatural,then you will never understand.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Where did you get the idea that I did not believe in the Supernatural? Specifically, in God? Don’t make assumptions that you cannot demonstrate.
T
Techno2000
Guest
I see that you are in RCIA, do you know about things like… private revelations and Catholic mystics ?Techno2000:
Where did you get the idea that I did not believe in the Supernatural? Specifically, in God? Don’t make assumptions that you cannot demonstrate.
W
whatistrue
Guest
Totally not relevant to the question, but I will (sort of) answer anyway. I know some details about some private revelations, and I also know that even “approved” ones are not a matter of required belief. And I was never very interested in mysticism at all.
So how about that process, date, and timeline?
So how about that process, date, and timeline?
L
lelinator
Guest
That may be true, but how do you plan to prove that the Supernatural is actually there?
Last edited:
T
Techno2000
Guest
I’m very interested in them, and they say the book of Genesis is true, and there is an Adam and Eve.
W
whatistrue
Guest
“True” and “historically accurate” are not synonymous. Why the digression? Three simple questions.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Using what process? When did it happen? How long did it take?
1.Supernaturally
2.In the beginning of creation
3.In an instant
T
Techno2000
Guest
By the process of canonization.Techno2000:
That may be true, but how do you plan to prove that the Supernatural is actually there?
W
whatistrue
Guest
- So vague as to be almost meaningless, but never mind.
- Which was how long ago? And wasn’t the creation of Man several “days” after the beginning, according to the timeline?
- I have to presume that you mean an instant in the universe, since God experiences no instants. Personally, I am more amazed at the idea of starting a chain of events that unfolded over billions of our years with no mistakes, but maybe that’s just me.
L
lelinator
Guest
Really!!! That’s it? I’m afraid that that neither constitutes proof, nor is it ultimately going to be very convincing.
But let me help you out, because there’s only one way that I know of by which people attempt to prove the existence of the supernatural, and that’s by using a “God of the Gaps” argument. I.E…one asserts that science is unable to adequately answer a specific question, and therefore it’s reasonable to insert a supernatural cause into the supposed gap.
That’s specifically what Creationism does. It asserts that science hasn’t “Proven” that life evolved, therefore the only logical conclusion is, that there must be a supernatural cause.
Classic “God of the Gaps”.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
No… The First Life in the Physical Universe He Created.
R
rossum
Guest
Almost right. God is both alive and omnipresent, so He was present and alive in the material universe from the beginning.
A living God cannot explain the origin of life, unless there is an explanation for the origin of that living God.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Just as the Potter precedes His pots, so too.
Since the Creator Created Creation - He Existed Before this Universe.
Origin of Life on Earth? Thank God for that…
_
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
The Chemical Complexity of Bacteria - is the most complex Chemistry in the Universe.
That Knowledge? Is thus far - mostly UnKnown, although yes, it’s being investigated
Bacteria as ‘simple’? Ranks amongst the largest under-statements in the Universe
K
Kei
Guest
When Darwin first penned his work, he didn’t know how genetics worked. Mendelian genetics wasn’t widely accepted until decades later.
There were still some concerns: did artificially selected creatures return to a “mean” when released into the wild? Indeed, breeders have artificially selected animals for a long time, yet despite the various varieties of dogs, they were still dogs, the same for plant breeders.
Could there be limits?
Ah, but people only live so long, and we can’t observe deep time.
When Mendelian genetics was accepted, it was combined with Darwin’s theory to create the modern synthesis, essentially modern-day neo-darwinism. The main (not sole) mode of mutation would be random allele changes. There are speculations about how to increase genetic depth, increasing the number of useful genes. The key to simpler creatures becoming more complex creatures would lie in the formulation of new genetic information. A loss of information can occasionally provide some sort of benefit, but it won’t actually build up a creature. To use analogy, the windows of a house breaking may provide some benefit of greater air-flow, but change of this sort will not build a different house. Likewise, a window can be changed to a different one, but it also won’t build a different house. If all the windows, floors, walls, and roof change, it is still a house, albeit a quite different house. The genes of a creature may mutate and change or stop working, but that is quite a different thing from a new, useful gene that would now exist in addition to what was previously there. That would be more like adding bricks to a foundation.
Theory and speculation as to how this may occur and presumably would have occurred in the past is one thing, but observation is another.
Is there a limit to plausible changes from random mutations?
The theory of evolution’s “tree” is dependent on mutations not being limited in such a way. But is there any possible way we can test this assumption? Breeders can only breed for so long.
Being that some single cell creatures have such short breeding times, decades can be the same as millions of years for more complex creatures with a much longer breeding time. We can even try aggravating selection pressures!
Well, this where someone like Dr Lenski can come in. His work can show the great adaptive prowess of evolutionary change (insertion, deletion, etc), as indeed it has done. But how long should it go on before we start considering it can perhaps be used to empirically demonstrate some sort of limit to that adaptive prowess? These tests are very long term, but perhaps if we can do other such tests, and if they go on long enough, biologists could consider them tests for biological limits.
Perhaps within a few hundred years most biologists will have a different view. Maybe it’ll be an exciting time for biologists! That’s my $.02. If the tests of Dino fossils really do show a young age in strata that are supposed to be much older, and it is verified by multiple other teams, it will be a very interesting time for geologists (researchopenworld.com)!
There were still some concerns: did artificially selected creatures return to a “mean” when released into the wild? Indeed, breeders have artificially selected animals for a long time, yet despite the various varieties of dogs, they were still dogs, the same for plant breeders.
Could there be limits?
Ah, but people only live so long, and we can’t observe deep time.
When Mendelian genetics was accepted, it was combined with Darwin’s theory to create the modern synthesis, essentially modern-day neo-darwinism. The main (not sole) mode of mutation would be random allele changes. There are speculations about how to increase genetic depth, increasing the number of useful genes. The key to simpler creatures becoming more complex creatures would lie in the formulation of new genetic information. A loss of information can occasionally provide some sort of benefit, but it won’t actually build up a creature. To use analogy, the windows of a house breaking may provide some benefit of greater air-flow, but change of this sort will not build a different house. Likewise, a window can be changed to a different one, but it also won’t build a different house. If all the windows, floors, walls, and roof change, it is still a house, albeit a quite different house. The genes of a creature may mutate and change or stop working, but that is quite a different thing from a new, useful gene that would now exist in addition to what was previously there. That would be more like adding bricks to a foundation.
Theory and speculation as to how this may occur and presumably would have occurred in the past is one thing, but observation is another.
Is there a limit to plausible changes from random mutations?
The theory of evolution’s “tree” is dependent on mutations not being limited in such a way. But is there any possible way we can test this assumption? Breeders can only breed for so long.
Being that some single cell creatures have such short breeding times, decades can be the same as millions of years for more complex creatures with a much longer breeding time. We can even try aggravating selection pressures!
Well, this where someone like Dr Lenski can come in. His work can show the great adaptive prowess of evolutionary change (insertion, deletion, etc), as indeed it has done. But how long should it go on before we start considering it can perhaps be used to empirically demonstrate some sort of limit to that adaptive prowess? These tests are very long term, but perhaps if we can do other such tests, and if they go on long enough, biologists could consider them tests for biological limits.
Perhaps within a few hundred years most biologists will have a different view. Maybe it’ll be an exciting time for biologists! That’s my $.02. If the tests of Dino fossils really do show a young age in strata that are supposed to be much older, and it is verified by multiple other teams, it will be a very interesting time for geologists (researchopenworld.com)!
F
Freddy
Guest
The one that denies cerationism.Freddy:
“evolution” ? Again. which theory do you ascribe to?
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Why is it that in threads like this one everybody and their cat are experts in a variety of scientific disciplines? Experts to such a degree that they can dismiss established theories like an itch. Yet they don’t have a single paper published in a credible scientific journal. 
F
Freddy
Guest
‘The coal formed quickly in the year-long Genesis Flood only about 4,300 years ago’. Coal Formation - Defending the Christian Faith (Writings of John G Leslie and Others)
I’m sure he proposed it. Getting it accepted is another matter.
- Status