My friend the water melon and the jelly fish are both 98% water....but one moves and the other not! 2% in God's math means a lot.
God bless
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are right
- Thread starter ASUK
- Start date
God bless
Hey brother... I just want to say sorry about my comnents that you said was disrespectfull! I dont know what do you mean, but I did not mean to be disrespectfull at all.
God bless!
We share 97% of DNA with pigs as well.
I like this one!.....lol...
https://answersingenesis.org/geneti...t-the-similarity-between-human-and-chimp-dna/
Read the whole page - it is 4% difference between humans and chimps and that 4% equals 35 million differences.
You have heard of the missing link, have you not? I do not see a fossil link which proves macro evolution. Might we have once been shorter, had more teeth, denser bones? I can buy this, but macro evolution is more disproved than proved.
The moment we find the millions of missing links to bridge every macro jump I will agree. Until then I laugh my head off at claims that something like the tiktaalik bridge the gap between our transition from fish to reptile.
Dna similarity means little. 1. The 99% is debatable as some tests say 80% and others 93%. 2. Mice have 70-90% of their gene structure in common with humans too. 3. Bats share more dna with horses then cows do.
The numbers indicate how great is the genetic diversity and the potential for even more among different animals, rather than how narrow it is. Since we know all life comes from the same source it should be no surprise that His fingerprints are evident in every life form He created.
Godspell, 1. do you believe intelligent man is correctly traced back to Africa 200k years ago? 2. Natural selection is evil? 3. In a garden of Eden? and if so, 4. if Lions lay with lambs in the garden of Eden?
Last edited:
One more time.....with more feeling this time.
There are different types of evolution. Some false and some true. Some based on observable science and some based on speculation.
True evolution - Micro evolution - Example: different types of dogs can procreate new types of dogs. They're still dogs or of the same kind of animal.
False evolution - Macro evolution - Example: something unseen or from speculation. One type of fossilized remains is a link to another type of fossilized remains. How can anyone say some certain fossilized remains procreated another? They can't; they weren't there to observe it, it's based on speculation, not fact.
Also, a lot of scientist start out explaining Micro evolution, it's believable because it is true. Then they, scientist, twist it into speculation very easily by simply stating 'millions of years'. Again, who was there to observe it/this? No one.
To further explain my point - There are 2 types of science; observable, that which can be seen and proven, and speculative science, that which can't been seen or requires faith. Hence, religious science.
There are different types of evolution. Some false and some true. Some based on observable science and some based on speculation.
True evolution - Micro evolution - Example: different types of dogs can procreate new types of dogs. They're still dogs or of the same kind of animal.
False evolution - Macro evolution - Example: something unseen or from speculation. One type of fossilized remains is a link to another type of fossilized remains. How can anyone say some certain fossilized remains procreated another? They can't; they weren't there to observe it, it's based on speculation, not fact.
Also, a lot of scientist start out explaining Micro evolution, it's believable because it is true. Then they, scientist, twist it into speculation very easily by simply stating 'millions of years'. Again, who was there to observe it/this? No one.
To further explain my point - There are 2 types of science; observable, that which can be seen and proven, and speculative science, that which can't been seen or requires faith. Hence, religious science.
Micro evolution does not exist. Selectively breeding dogs is not evolution.
microevolution
[mahy-kroh-ev-uh-loo-shuh n or, esp. British, -ee-vuh-] Spell Syllable
noun, Biology
1.
evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutationsleading to new varieties within a species.
2.
minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time. (dictionary.com)
Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.[1] This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution.Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance. (wikipedia, I know, sad source for reference)
Genesis 1:24 NKJ
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations
Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth according to itskind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (biblegateway)
I know so called natural selection is often called micro evolution. I submit that this is poor wording.
A particular bacteria 'becomes' antibiotic resistant not because of any change in the bug, just a shift in the population. One bug survives the antibiotic, divides then there are two who divide and then there are four etc. soon there are billions of the bugs, all resistant to that antibiotic. There is no evolution here, just a population enrichment process.
In the same way, if every Caucasian person were to be removed (relocated) from the African continent, leaving only indigenous Negroid peoples there, we would not be saying "Ahh see, microevolution caused this!"
Also, crossing a fox terrier with a beagle might result in a feagle that can reproduce true to the new breed but since there would still be beagles and fox terriers there has been no evolution of any kind.....just a bit of cross breading.
The story of spotted moths benefiting from natural selection is also rather feeble if we consider that these moths, both spotted and white have been around for thousands of years, yet the birds have not been able to clear the white moths from the scene. Proof? they still exist to be observed in recent times instead of disappearing thousands of years ago.....why is that?
So for me at least there is no such thing as biological evolution regardless of what fancy prefixing is added.
A particular bacteria 'becomes' antibiotic resistant not because of any change in the bug, just a shift in the population. One bug survives the antibiotic, divides then there are two who divide and then there are four etc. soon there are billions of the bugs, all resistant to that antibiotic. There is no evolution here, just a population enrichment process.
In the same way, if every Caucasian person were to be removed (relocated) from the African continent, leaving only indigenous Negroid peoples there, we would not be saying "Ahh see, microevolution caused this!"
Also, crossing a fox terrier with a beagle might result in a feagle that can reproduce true to the new breed but since there would still be beagles and fox terriers there has been no evolution of any kind.....just a bit of cross breading.
The story of spotted moths benefiting from natural selection is also rather feeble if we consider that these moths, both spotted and white have been around for thousands of years, yet the birds have not been able to clear the white moths from the scene. Proof? they still exist to be observed in recent times instead of disappearing thousands of years ago.....why is that?
So for me at least there is no such thing as biological evolution regardless of what fancy prefixing is added.
Well I see you're making this personal. So, I'll just say, I've said all I'm going to say to you.
Proverbs 23:9 (KJV)
Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
Bacterial resistance can and has occurred via random genetic mutation which is the basis for evolution. As I say though, there is no reason why mutation can't go one step forward and two steps back. That is where I believe the theist component comes in.
I didn't say anything of the sort. I was pointing out a belittling attitude that is being expressed towards those with different opinions on this forum.
Despite whatever are more conservative evangelicals friends are expressing the majority of christians either accept or tolerate theistic evolution as a nonessential doctrine including the largest Christian denomination.
The gaps in the missing link are not greater than what has already been proved to have been traversed. Its like saying A could not have evolved to F because there is no E. Yes maybe not but there is B, C and D so maybe we haven't found E but there is no reason to believe we won't find it.
Your last statement is also simply not true. Any scientific theory can be infirmed or even disproved, but thus far there is no theory to compete with evolution that has been as well confirmed. These days contesting evolution is like contesting gravity, its not even really a theory its a fact. There is such a plethora of observed occurrences of evolution that it is effectively fact. That does not mean that infirming evidence doesn't exist (as it does with gravity) and it certainly does not mean God does not exist or is any less powerful or magestic than He is described.
evolution as a fact? Some scientist (actually more and more) disagree: http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
God can exist in a creation in which there is evolution, can be powerful and can be majestic, but such a god would not be personal and there is no reason to believe such a god would have created us in his image nor cared enough about this evolved species as to present himself in bodily form, take on the weight of our sins, die a horrible death, rise again 3 days later ascend and offer us forgiveness as well as life eternal. Such a god would not have created us as good and we would have not evolved a soul ...
The assertion that evolution of such nature as would allow that we are simply higher order primates somehow having been derived from lower order primates is inconsistent with the concept of a personal and active god which seeks to reconcile us to him through how own suffering and ascension.
The failures of the theory of evolution are too great to be ignored. The idea that God created the world and sustains it
The assertion that evolution of such nature as would allow that we are simply higher order primates somehow having been derived from lower order primates is inconsistent with the concept of a personal and active god which seeks to reconcile us to him through how own suffering and ascension.
The failures of the theory of evolution are too great to be ignored. The idea that God created the world and sustains it
I used to believe in micro evolution until I researched it further.One of the main arguments that killed it for me was mutation. Studies of samples in radiation reveal that there is never 'uphill' progress. Which is required to support evolution. There is only lateral and downhill.
Your sifting through loads of scientific inquiry to find things that support your assertion. You will find next to no accredited biologist or anthropologist who does not scientifically apply the theory of evolution. The main reason why is that no other theory is able to explain or predict natural phenomena as well.
Your making a ton of assumptions here and most of them are not even being argued. Science is utterly incapable of examining the soul. I, as well as every other theistic evolutionary, believes that God personally and originally creates a unique and immaculate soul. Physical bodies are by and large subcreations and innately imperfect as is the entirety of the physical world.
Now, your assumption that God personally involving Himself in the creation of physical bodies means He is impersonal fails to examine an important fact. Why would God create an imperfect body? Why do people have birth defects, genetic disorders, bodies that are designed to eventually die? Your theology holds that God arbitrarily designs these to fail, mine holds that God intentionally designs the laws of nature, a degree of randomness and disorder for the purpose of intervening in it to give divine providence/intervention (i.e. Miracles) greater value.
By virtue of faith neither theological construct is more valuable, they are both feeble attempts to understand divine mystery. But I fear that the position you take is particularly disenlightened and looks upon the Middle Ages where scientists were burned and tortured for suggesting anything contrary to accepted dogma with a sense of nostalgia.