Revelation is a human-authored book. It can be studied using scientific, historical and documentary records. It is not outside the box. Or are you telling me that the Bhagavad Gita is also outside the box?
Revelation is Divine. The I am Who Am, reality Itself, who has spoken. The uncaused cause is the Supreme Being.
A Hindu will agree with you. A Muslim will agree with you. A Mormon will agree with you. They will all disagree with you as to which books contain Revelation, and which do not.
They all treat Genesis the same way. They all understand God to be the Creator.
Evolutionary biology uses statistics and probability selectively - ie, only when it they act in favour of the theory. When they don’t act in favour, they are ignored. This approach to science is called intellectual dishonesty.
In order to answer your question, I need your definition of “the theory of evolution”.
Yes, but that’s selective breeding/microevolution…right ?edwest:
In order to answer your question, I need your definition of “the theory of evolution”.
Meanwhile, here is one definition, as provided by livescience.com:
“The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits.”
One could readily google hundreds of practical uses in biology for the process described in this definition. Animal and plant breeding are two simple examples.
Ken Miller and Francis Collins treat Genesis the same way. They both understand God to be the Creator.
Strawman. Evoution doesn't deny God.IWantGod:
I didn't say it's an "atheist" explanation; I said it's a "godless" explanation.
Yes it can. All theories that don't make logical sense are rejected.
That's not incredulity. That would be down to lack of evidence.
Thank you.
I knew that. And it was the Reverend Jenkins that told me. It wasn't Mr. Davies, my biology teacher.Bradskii:
In the very first line of Genesis
In the beginning (time)
God created
the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)
Then you are discussing religion. Not science.rossum:
I would agree that Revelation has definitely had an effect inside the box.
It seems to me that the practical uses of “evolution” date back into prehistory. I can’t think of any particular practical use for the theory “first formulated in Darwin’s book”. The people and organizations that are attempting to save species of tortoises in the Galapagos from extinction hardly label what they are doing as fighting natural selection, although that is the problem. They are simply trying to isolate the eggs and kill off the rats, goats and pigs which are responsible for the decline. Farmers and shepherds have been doing likewise since antiquity.
That evolution occurs is often taken as a fact. The theory? No, by definition.
Tell Buff. He thinks it’s ID.
There are no partially formed bits and pieces. I’m afraid that you are exhibiting a serious lack in understanding the the subject.
There’s a theory that explains all this.
We know. We have a theory that explains it.
Yeah. As you said: God can do multiple, continuous creations.
You offered one yourself some time ago. Bio…something or other. Have they stopped using it? And the tens of thousands that use it on a daily basis - have you told them it doesn’t work?
Who is going to tell Buffalo that they were human?Neandertals are looking more human everyday. Maybe we weren’t just cavemen after all.
Just a heads up, guys. The prefix ‘homo’ means human.
You’re obviously not a big fan of knowing why something works to enable the process to be improved as opposed to just knowing that somehow it just does.Edgar:
It seems to me that the practical uses of “evolution” date back into prehistory. I can’t think of any particular practical use for the theory “first formulated in Darwin’s book”.
Nearly missed this one. Do you have any concrete examples of biology ignoring statistics and probablity that we can examine?Bradskii:
Evolutionary biology uses statistics and probability selectively - ie, only when it they act in favour of the theory. When they don’t act in favour, they are ignored. This approach to science is called intellectual dishonesty.