M
Metis1
Guest
Yes, and this is to be expected and welcomed, imo. Nothing in the basic ToE refutes that even though it can’t posit that
.
.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Metis1
Guest
Science takes a very different approach than religion. Religion doesn’t use the “scientific method”, for just one important example. Religion is not based on objectively-derived evidence, for another.
Nothing in science is sacred, therefore even the most vastly supported evidence is always subject to more study and reevaluation. Generally speaking, we don’t like to use words like “proof” and “fact” because they tend to imply that it’s slam-dunk. Instead, we are far more likely to use the word “evidence”, often modified showing degrees.
As one who has taught both in the scientific realm and the religious realm, they are vastly different from each other. Science teaches “skepticism”, whereas religion teaches “faith”. As scientists, we tend not to be very orthodox for this reason. My “theology” is not going to be like some other’s theology, and in most cases I take both the “live and let live” and the “viva la difference” approaches. I strongly dislike the “my way or the highway” approach.
Nothing in science is sacred, therefore even the most vastly supported evidence is always subject to more study and reevaluation. Generally speaking, we don’t like to use words like “proof” and “fact” because they tend to imply that it’s slam-dunk. Instead, we are far more likely to use the word “evidence”, often modified showing degrees.
As one who has taught both in the scientific realm and the religious realm, they are vastly different from each other. Science teaches “skepticism”, whereas religion teaches “faith”. As scientists, we tend not to be very orthodox for this reason. My “theology” is not going to be like some other’s theology, and in most cases I take both the “live and let live” and the “viva la difference” approaches. I strongly dislike the “my way or the highway” approach.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
And the Theory of Gravity is still… a Theory. Your point is?Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is still… a Theory.
rossum
R
rossum
Guest
You asked where the “mistakes” were. I gave you a mistake. By trying to move the goalposts like this, you are tacitly confirming that I have correctly answered your question and that your original point was wrong.I guess that shows me.
You found a club foot.
Of course this is not exactly a new species that is not suited to the environment.
The majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious; that is not news to any biologist.
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Eve coming from Adam is a problem.
R
rossum
Guest
No transitionals between Seth and Noah to show us? Where are your transitionals between Noah and Moses?And no transitional fossils for… penguins,ostriches,vultures,peacocks,sparrows,toucans, hummingbirds,ducks,parrots,pelicans…
It is very easy to ask for transitionals. We have shown you a few of ours, how about you showing us the fossils of yours?
I give you Archaeopteryx and you give me nothing. Where is a transitional fossil from your side?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Skepticism is not allowed by the faith of evolutionism.
E
edwest211
Guest
That is a very big stumbling block.
T
Techno2000
Guest
If birds came from dinosaurs,that would mean the earth was devoid of all birds for millions and millions of years. Do you really believe this planet was without any birds for 20 million years ?I give you Archaeopteryx and you give me nothing. Where is a transitional fossil from your side?
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
You’re allowed to dissent all you want. You do it by going through the collected information and explaining it better than the current predominant theory does.
What you’re not allowed to do is to completely ignore the evidence, put forward a “theory” which does not explain any of the evidence, and then demand that it be given equal time in science class. That would make no more sense than making kids bring bowling balls to swimming class.
What you’re not allowed to do is to completely ignore the evidence, put forward a “theory” which does not explain any of the evidence, and then demand that it be given equal time in science class. That would make no more sense than making kids bring bowling balls to swimming class.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
That’s like saying the rainbow is devoid of orange because there was once yellow.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Good. This is as it should be. If Christian students want to argue against evolution in science class, that’s great-- a teacher then has the opportunity to explain that science is about observable facts, and that X, Y and Z are the observable facts, and that’s why evolution is by far the most common theory of speciation.
The theory of evolution has repeatedly withstood religious-based claims not because it’s a new religion with a new dogma and faith. It withstands them because it explains observable facts much better and more robustly than any other idea.
The theory of evolution has repeatedly withstood religious-based claims not because it’s a new religion with a new dogma and faith. It withstands them because it explains observable facts much better and more robustly than any other idea.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Do you really believe the hummingbird mutated from a pelican or did vulture morph into the turkey, how about the ostrich becoming the parrot .I speculate the toucan came from the woodpecker,because they both have hard beaks.And the kingfisher morphed from ducks because they both like water.That’s like saying the rainbow is devoid of orange because there was once yellow.
Last edited:
B
benjamin1973
Guest
What you have are the very beginnings of some theories: you’ve observed that there are in fact some common traits among these animals. Now you’ll have to go through the paleontological records to see in what order they showed up on Earth. You’ll also have to correlate a lot more phenotypes in order to increase your confidence that the relationships you are proposing are real.
My point to you, though, is about the basic concept of evolution. A species isn’t an individual “thing” that appears suddenly at any given point. No animal is waiting for its features to appear. Whales weren’t 4-legged animals waiting around to develop flippers, and giraffes weren’t deer waiting to develop .long necks.
My point to you, though, is about the basic concept of evolution. A species isn’t an individual “thing” that appears suddenly at any given point. No animal is waiting for its features to appear. Whales weren’t 4-legged animals waiting around to develop flippers, and giraffes weren’t deer waiting to develop .long necks.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The evidence for design is there. You just need to open your mind.
B
buffalo
Guest
What are some of the “observable” facts of evolution?
B
buffalo
Guest
No longer. We know so much more in the last few decades.
R
ratio1
Guest
One you can test the hypothesis by performing experiments, the other you can’t.And the Theory of Gravity is still… a Theory. Your point is?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Whales weren’t 4-legged animals waiting around to develop flippers
B
buffalo
Guest
Note the evospeak:
Hawaiian Spiders on Different Islands Evolved Same Disguise in Parallel
In an unusual evolutionary twist, local stick spiders have come up with an almost identical repertoire of color morphs in multiple locations.
The phylogenetic tree created using the data suggests that the same color patterns must have evolved multiple times as the stick spiders spread to new habitats.
“They arrive on an island, and boom! You get independent evolution to the same set of forms,” Gillespie says in the statement. “Most radiations just don’t do this,”
“The possibility that whole communities of these spiders have evolved convergently is certainly exciting,” Ambika Kamath, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who didn’t take part in the study, tells The Atlantic. She adds that the study provides insight into the “deterministic processes that shape the diversity of life.”
Design…Do they know convergent evolution is a design argument?
Hawaiian Spiders on Different Islands Evolved Same Disguise in Parallel
In an unusual evolutionary twist, local stick spiders have come up with an almost identical repertoire of color morphs in multiple locations.
The phylogenetic tree created using the data suggests that the same color patterns must have evolved multiple times as the stick spiders spread to new habitats.
“They arrive on an island, and boom! You get independent evolution to the same set of forms,” Gillespie says in the statement. “Most radiations just don’t do this,”
“The possibility that whole communities of these spiders have evolved convergently is certainly exciting,” Ambika Kamath, a behavioral ecologist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who didn’t take part in the study, tells The Atlantic. She adds that the study provides insight into the “deterministic processes that shape the diversity of life.”
Loading…
www.the-scientist.com
Design…Do they know convergent evolution is a design argument?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.