These continuous incremental changes don't lead to one kind becoming another kind. It simply enables a kind to adapt to the environment. I am not very familiar with genetic science, but I assume there is a small area in the DNA that is responsible for a human to be a human and the monkey being a monkey. That small fraction doesn't change. I would be interested if you are aware of any scientific proof when one kind turned into another.
OK, only briefly because I can only write so many characters. Through my studies I concluded the following: In the beginning of the second century AD there was a Jewish war and in the ensuing antisemitism Jewish believers were excommunicated from the churches. Thus, Hebraic thought was lost, without which the Greek Christians could not understand the Hebrew scriptures, thus they brought Platonism and Pagan ideas into the interpretation and developed into a very different religion that it originally started out. I am interested in the religion that was before that time. Since the term "Christian" has been used over the history to mean those who subscribed to orthodoxy, I do not call myself a Christian. I do not call myself a Messianic either, because they are Jews who subscribe to Christian orthodoxy.
I do not accept the Greek doctrines such as virgin birth, trinity, sin nature, souls going to heaven or hell, salvation by belief in Jesus, etc. Thus, my religion is a lot simpler. I believe the bible, but I use Hebraic thought to interpret it. And I don't accept some magical stuff like walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.
Christian creationism believes that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days. I believe the creation story is a song, told in the frame of six literal days. It is about making the earth suitable for life and filling it with living, not the creation of the whole universe. But it is not a historical description of what happened, only a song about it.
In the past I used to read a lot about Einstein's theory of relativity. Wow! I thought, how great, he discovered something very important. Then as I studied I realised there were dozens of other, competing theories, some of them were even better, but were not generally accepted. So as I see, science has numerous theories in every area researched and studied, and from those a few gets picked up and used, not necessarily the best ones.
For example, Einstein's theory rests on the idea that the speed of light is constant. What if it isn't? A few years ago a researcher at the University of Sydney (If I remember correctly) discovered that the speed of light has been exponentially dropping. As far as I know his theory is still not accepted today, if it was, it would require a pretty majour rewrite of science.
This shows that even if a theory is disproven a new, better theory doesn't get accepted - perhaps for a long time, or never. I think it was Einstein who once said that a theory gets accepted when its opponents die out.
The world of science is a lot more complex. I have not investigated biology much, so I don't know how many theories exist that compete with evolution, but I am sure there are a few.
Since science investigates the physical world it cannot touch on the spiritual world. Therefore, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Regarding the origin of the universe you can either believe in creation or the big bang or all the other scientific theories that are out there but we don't hear much about.
My problem is that scientific theories are presented as facts by popular science. The common people think the big bang and evolution are facts.
I look at the living world and I think it cannot have such a mind blowing beauty and complexity without a designer and maker.
Scientists have been trying to create life from inorganic matter in laboratories by trying to reproduce the conditions believed to have existed when the first living life form appeared. The last I heard was that they managed to create some kind of organic compound. A living cell is far more than its components. Its components must work in harmony and somehow produce energy to survive. How are scientist ever going to create the first cell out of inorganic matter just by using light, heat, methane and some soil or rocks or whatever? Today it seems impossible. One day it may be possible.
But that will just show me how much knowledge was required to get it done :-)
I would never use the fact that there are scientists that believe in God as a proof for God's existence.
Agree.
I do not dispute evolution because I believe in God. I dispute it because I have not seen evidence that one kind of living creature evolved into another kind. There are other religious people who accept evolution and they still believe in God.
I'd call "evolution" when species evolve into other species. Probably the term "specie" is not really what I'd use, for I mean different thing. I am not sure what the best term would be so I'd rather use "kind". As I learned not long ago science identifies various species within a family.
I am not a biologist, so let me define what I mean under the term "kind". It is a type of living being that can intermarry with other members of its variants and produce offspring. So you can cross different types of dogs that may be classified as different species by science. However, you cannot cross a dog with a cat. In that instance the kinds are locked in.
Now, I don't dispute that within kinds their properties change as they respond to the environment. What I. however, argue, that evolution requires that one kind would change into another kind over time. I am not aware of any evidence for this.
Yet, the peppered moth would have never become anything but a peppered moth even if it picked up various properties to adapt to the environment. Evolutionary scientists call it "evolution", but for me it is adaptation. The ability to change is built into the system.
But the peppered moth never changes anything else, it always remains a peppered moth. So the genetic information that determines what makes a peppered moth a peppered moth remains unchanged.
I answered your last question in another reply. I am not an evolutionist, though not a Christian creationist either.
I don't dispute the idea that genes are modified when the environment changes. But for me that is not evolution, but rather, adaptation. The dog will be a dog even if he grows long hair when the weather turns permanently colder.
But I'd like to see evidence for more significant change than simply adaptation.
And even if such change can be proven, how does that disprove creation? I think, it doesn't. But it will disprove the current creationist movement for sure.
I need to admit I have not been following science for the last decade or so, therefore, my knowledge is not current.
It would help if you provided a reference to the article.
So far what I have seen only is a theory being declared as a scientific fact. Sure, there are different boned here and three and scientists call them this and that primeval man, but no transitional form has been found. I would be interested to see some evidence other than speculation that this bone had to come after the other bone. They could simply be two different kinds that became extinct.
I would be interested to see fossil evidence for gradual change from one kind to another. I have not heard about any such thing.
Telling me that this ape-like creature and that ape-like creature was our ancestors is not convincing without transitional forms - which I think don't exist.
The frog to dog example was an exaggeration to show that one kind of animal would evolve into another. The moth only changed colour during the industrial evolution. Why do you think it meant the change in the overall gene pool? It was still a moth. There are even arguments that they didn't change at all, but the white ones were more noticeable to birds in the polluted environment and were simply hunted down.
I have no problem seeing small changes within kinds, but I'd like to see proof that one kind ever developed into another.
I don't have a problem with people being atheists at all. I only argue with those who categorically DECLARE that God doesn't exist and that He is a fairy tale. You can only declare something like that if you have PROOF. But you don't have proof either for or against it.
I used to be an atheist myself, so I understand atheists and DO respect their position.
But you cannot substantiate your opinion that God is a fairy tale. While I cannot prove there is a God, I can neither disprove Him. If I could disprove him then God would be a fairy tale. Fairy tales are those things we KNOW are not true.
I need to correct you. The moon does NEVER show the other side. There is only a little wobbling effect because of the elliptic path.
"The Moon is in synchronous rotation: it rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth. This results in it nearly always keeping the same face turned towards the Earth. The Moon used to rotate at a faster rate, but early in its history, its rotation slowed and became tidally locked in this orientation as a result of frictional effects associated with tidal deformations caused by the Earth. The side of the Moon that faces Earth is called the near side, and the opposite side the far side. The far side is often called the "dark side," but in fact, it is illuminated as often as the near side: once per lunar day, during the new Moon phase we observe on Earth when the near side is dark."
If the tidal deformations caused by the earth locked the moon into its current rotational pattern, we should see other moons in the solar system behaving similarly. However, there are no other moons with this characteristics.
This is a very simplistic reason. I believed in God because through my own research to understand the world around me, economy and history and nature I eventually concluded that God must exist.
I did not need love, as you say, but on the day I acknowledge the existence of God there was a very overwhelming joy that came upon me while at work, and when I got home my wife, who knew nothing about my conclusion and experience, reported the very same strong emotional experience.
I cannot explain it and don't even want to. And I was never one of those Pentecostal Christians who regularly claim miraculous experiences.
I am convinced that everyone has the right to believe whatever they wish. But nobody can categorically state that there is no God without having proof. Those who believe in God cannot categorically state that there is a God, only state that they believe in Him.
Why do you seek the spiritual in the realm of the physical? Can the deep sea fish rightly state elephants don't exist because he could not find him in his neighbourhood? If there is a creator, He should not be found in creation. Just like you don't look for the potter in the pot.
Why do you seek the spiritual in the realm of the physical? Can the deep sea fish rightly state elephants don't exist because he could not find him in his neighbourhood? If there is a creator, He should not be found in creation. Just like you don't look for the potter in the pot.
revealer24 Forum Posts (985)
RE: Why...
These continuous incremental changes don't lead to one kind becoming another kind. It simply enables a kind to adapt to the environment. I am not very familiar with genetic science, but I assume there is a small area in the DNA that is responsible for a human to be a human and the monkey being a monkey. That small fraction doesn't change. I would be interested if you are aware of any scientific proof when one kind turned into another.
OK, only briefly because I can only write so many characters. Through my studies I concluded the following: In the beginning of the second century AD there was a Jewish war and in the ensuing antisemitism Jewish believers were excommunicated from the churches. Thus, Hebraic thought was lost, without which the Greek Christians could not understand the Hebrew scriptures, thus they brought Platonism and Pagan ideas into the interpretation and developed into a very different religion that it originally started out. I am interested in the religion that was before that time. Since the term "Christian" has been used over the history to mean those who subscribed to orthodoxy, I do not call myself a Christian. I do not call myself a Messianic either, because they are Jews who subscribe to Christian orthodoxy.
I do not accept the Greek doctrines such as virgin birth, trinity, sin nature, souls going to heaven or hell, salvation by belief in Jesus, etc. Thus, my religion is a lot simpler. I believe the bible, but I use Hebraic thought to interpret it. And I don't accept some magical stuff like walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.
Christian creationism believes that the whole universe was created in 6 literal days. I believe the creation story is a song, told in the frame of six literal days. It is about making the earth suitable for life and filling it with living, not the creation of the whole universe. But it is not a historical description of what happened, only a song about it.