No, I didn’t miss that point, I expressly made that point.You have missed the point. Regardless of whether one accepts evolution or creation, scientific understanding relies on facts …
A scientific theory is tested by attempts to refute it. These are ongoing, continuous and extensive. So far there has been no success.… not theories that can’t be tested.
How strange that my views, which you think are atheistic, are crucial to the survival of Christianity as a credible religion, in the face of yours, which you think are theistic, but are responsible for its decline. Let’s hope you don’t smother it altogether.It wouldn’t surprise me if you are in fact an atheist masquerading as a Catholic. Many of your opinons are decidely atheistic.
The strength of evolution lies in the continuous attempts by the scientific community to refute it. It is not a dogma and is challenged all the time, so far without success.The scientific community will not tolerate any criticism of the general theory of evolution … that all life on earth evolved from microbes. It is a scientific dogma that cannot be challenged.
Since the evolution of bilateralism, which you could imagine as a kind of mirror-imaging set of genes, evolutionary developments to paired organs only need to happen once to apply to both.How do pairs of structures usually evolve? Eg eyes, ears, limbs.
Do thy evolve as one first and then became two or do they evolve from zero to two directly?
You ain’t seen nothing yet…You know which laws God decided to organise his creation by? Wow, this makes you unique in all of human history! I knew you were smart, but not THAT smart!
The sort of Christian who believes that God is a living God and that He is eternal.What sort of “Christian” doesn’t believe that God created life?
They evolve as one; it is the developmental control mechanisms that duplicate eyes etc. You do not have eyes in your toes, though all the cells in your toes have the complete set of eye genes. The eye genes are turned off in the majority of cells in your body. The developmental control mechanisms say “build an eye here” in only two places; everywhere else they turn off those genes. If scientists tweak those mechanisms, such as Hox genes or Pax genes then eyes can appear in strange places.How do pairs of structures usually evolve? Eg eyes, ears, limbs.
Do thy evolve as one first and then became two or do they evolve from zero to two directly?
They could have done, but didn’t. Presumably duplication of lifestyles (autotroph and heterotroph) did not prove the best solution to survival. Later on, in specific circumstances, there evolved a few symbiotic organisms, the lichens.Why can’t animals evolve from plants?
Oh, I see. Would that be enough for you? That would be relatively easy. Try reading Richard Dawkins’s The Ancestor’s Tale.Really? How many steps are there? I’ve got two steps already.
but after so many years for evolution, wouldn’t the theory predicted that at least some of those plants would evolve into animals?They could have done, but didn’t.
No. Possible evolutionary strategies can be curtailed by already established competition.but after so many years for evolution, wouldn’t the theory predicted that at least some of those plants would evolve into animals?
We’ve jumped a bit from plants/animals to dinosaurs, but OK. Imagine a (plausible) global warming scenario in which the possession of fur is a distinct disadvantage. All the hairy animals would be under pressure to adapt or die out. Some species might gradually lose all their hair, as hippos and elephants have, and, if predation were an issue, also develop a harder skin, which could be divided into plates to facilitate movement. Armadillos have done something not unrelated. It would not be accurate to call these creatures dinosaurs, but they could look, and behave similarly, in similar environments.but what if competition dies out? some animals will one day evolve into dinosaurs? (given the right selective pressures)
Yeah…what are the fundamentalist that spoon-fed us this stuff trying to hide ?What do you think I missed? specifically
I guess this is an example of blind faith in mankind’s capacity to determine the truth without God, a belief in the illusions we create when divorced from what is true.All these assessments of impossibility are based on wishful thinking rather than science. It is admittedly true to that to demonstrate impossibility is extremely difficult, and demonstrating possibility much easier, which is why all the experiments related to evolution indeed suggest that it is possible, not impossible. That is, of course, not the same as ‘proof’ that it is God’s way (Science doesn’t do proof), but it leads to a detailed and coherent explanation for observed phenomena that no form of creationism can match.
Not at all. Completely the opposite. It is an example of my belief that my God-given power of rational thinking will enable me to understand his working out of his creation, that by doing so I shall improve my relationship to him, and that that was the principal reason I was given this power in the first place.I guess this is an example of blind faith in mankind’s capacity to determine the truth without God, a belief in the illusions we create when divorced from what is true.
Not at all. Completely the opposite. Not only is the possibility a wonderful illustration of the creative imagination of God’s unfettered omnipotence, but as it happens it fits the evidence of the observed universe extremely well.The possibility that random events at a chemical level will organize themselves in such a manner to first of all produce the simplest cell which will serendipitously go on to mould itself into the complexity that we see in the existence of the person is not science but wishful thinking.
This is a political shibboleth unworthy of you.That is among the issues that should be plaguing Darwinism, were it actually science and not a utilitarian materialistic mythos adopted by a society eager to accept its message.
Well, that’s fine. Evolutionists call exactly the same thing Evolution. What’s in a name? A rose by another name would smell as sweet.The fact that the universe was created in a step-wise fashion with what has been created being utilized to form the next level of creation is Genesis.
You’re getting lost again. Randomness. I wish you understood what it meant. Why does matter have its “inherent properties”? Precisely because of the "eternal Divine Mind! I do not recognise the dichotomy between the two.… That this randomly happened as a result of the inherent properties of matter and not the eternal Divine Mind is to put on blinkers to common sense.
Aaaaarrrgghh!! “Proven”, again!! The obstinacy of the closed mind. Science is not a proof. It does not set out to be a proof. The word ‘proof’ is alien to science. Why do creationists go on and on and on about it?This has not been proven but assumed.
You have clearly demonstrated that you know nothing about science, that you have an irrational fear of the evils of materialism, and insufficient faith in God’s plan to trust in his pioneers. Never mind, we’ll get there in the end, dragging the creationists in chains behind us!The story of evolution organizes the facts and is presented as being inseperable from the science to secular consumerist society, justifying its mores and standards.