Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
The majority of historians would believe that Jesus did indeed exist. But, it's a free country, and you are free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Hey PDN, I'm not questioning the existence of Jesus (historical Jesus) here although I did it in another thread before. I do know that most historians do agree that there was a Jesus character but I'm unsure about how sure they are he is the same guy referenced in the Bible and what aspects of the Bible account they agree or disagree with.
Could you shed some light here ? Although this is a little OT isn't it ?
P.S while your here can you please let us (and JC) know your opinion on A) the age of the Earth
Evolution and C) the story of Genesis, literal or metaphorical.
JC has claimed that any true Christian must believe in a young earth, evolution is false and genesis is literally true.0 -
JC has claimed that any true Christian must believe in a young earth, evolution is false and genesis is literally true.
JC obviously hasn't met the true scotsman
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
...this is all the CONTROVERSAL 'origins' stuff that has no evidence for it's existence...so IF you are saying that 'evolution' doesn't include (or at least doesn't need) these defunct ideas ... then I have no scientific issues with you ... and neither does any other Creation Scientist!!!!In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. Though changes produced in any one generation are normally small, differences accumulate with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population, a process that can result in the emergence of new species
The basis of evolution is the genes that are passed on from generation to generation; these produce an organism's inherited traits. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences (variation) in their traits. Evolution itself is the product of two opposing forces: processes that constantly introduce variation, and processes that make variants either become more common or rare. New variation arises in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. New combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms.
Does Evolution require a common ancestor for all life ? NO
Does Evolution require an explanation for the origin of life ? NO
Does Evolution require that Unicellular organisms evolved into multicellular organisms ? NO
...IF Evolutionary Biology just 'boils down' to the study of sexual/natural selection and the resulting 'genetic drift' ... which is also accepted as a fact by Creation Scientists... then, once again we have no disagreement ... as none of the above phenomena are disputed by Creation Science!!!Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Heredity ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Variation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Variation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Mutation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Genetic recombination and Sexual reproduction ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Genetic recombination and Population genetics ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Gene flow ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of natural selection and genetic drift. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of adaptation. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Co-Evolution. ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Co-operation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Speciation ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Extinction ?
NO
Would any of the above disprove Evolutionary biology in terms of the study of Extinction ?
...I love you all !!!!
0 -
-
...this is all the CONTROVERSAL 'origins' stuff that has no evidence for it's existence...so IF you are saying that 'evolution' doesn't include (or at least doesn't need) these defunct ideas ... then I have no scientific issues with you ... and neither does any other Creation Scientist!!!!
...IF Evolutionary Biology just 'boils down' to the study of sexual/natural selection and the resulting 'genetic drift' ... which is also accepted as a fact by Creation Scientists... then, once again we have no disagreement ... as none of the above phenomena are disputed by Creation Science!!!
...I love you all !!!!
Is..................is it over? :eek:0 -
-
I'm sorry you remain so confused. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.What are you talking about ?
We are not claiming creationists can't use x, y and z. We are saying you can't say we are using a, b and c in the definition of evolution when a, b and c are NOT in the definition of evolution.
Then you need to call it its proper scientific term.
Again, if you proved tomorrow that god magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed it would still not change the fact of evolution at all, the definition of which is "organisms change over generations".
It would change a huge number of aspects of the theory of evolution but many more aspects would be completely unaffected.
When you deny abiogenesis or evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) you are not denying evolution, you are denying apart of evolution.
Disproving a common ancestor would not disprove evolution.
Disproving abiogenesis would not disprove evolution.
Disproving we evolved from a unicellular organism would not disprove evolution.
These would disprove aspects of evolution and certain evolutionary theories.
This is why I want you to use the correct terms because its confusing as hell and its very unscientific and very wrong.
Its complete nonsense.
If I define something and I claim the evidence supports my definition and then I present that evidence, then you re-define my definition a way you like which is not something I am saying and then you claim to prove that wrong, what kind of sense does that make ?
You are disproving what YOU defined. You are not disproving the original definition or the evidence.
Could you please tell us what problem you have with Pythagorean theorem.
Its like saying I have disproved Pythagoras because the square of the length of the hypotenuse is not equal to 3.14.
Perhaps you'd like to redefine it for us ?
Both evolutionists and creationists believe "organisms change over generations". You choose to call that evolution, we choose to call it diversification.
Your whole theory says this 'evolution' continues beyond the limits we see today and involves billions of years of INCREASING complexity, we are happy to denote your all-encompassing version as evolution, and oppose it to our version which we can call diversification.
I hope that helps.
If not, let me then claim "organisms change over generations" as part of Creationism, so that you must accept Creationism if you hold that "organisms change over generations". That's how silly your present argument is.
Let me try a bit further:
God magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed.
Abiogenesis did not happen.
Evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) did not happen.
There was no common ancestor for all the biosphere.
Since you say all these could be true and evolution too, it seems "organisms change over generations" is the only thing that defines evolution in your mind.
If that is so, we welcome you, brother Creationist. Those are the key concepts of Creationism. 0 -
-
I'm sorry you remain so confused. I'll try to make this as simple as possible.
Both evolutionists and creationists believe "organisms change over generations". You choose to call that evolution, we choose to call it diversification.
Your whole theory says this 'evolution' continues beyond the limits we see today and involves billions of years of INCREASING complexity, we are happy to denote your all-encompassing version as evolution, and oppose it to our version which we can call diversification.
I hope that helps.
If not, let me then claim "organisms change over generations" as part of Creationism, so that you must accept Creationism if you hold that "organisms change over generations". That's how silly your present argument is.
Let me try a bit further:
God magicked human beings into existence as we are, fully formed.
Abiogenesis did not happen.
Evolution from a very simple organism (Unicellular) to a more complex organism (multicellular) did not happen.
There was no common ancestor for all the biosphere.
Since you say all these could be true and evolution too, it seems "organisms change over generations" is the only thing that defines evolution in your mind.
If that is so, we welcome you, brother Creationist. Those are the key concepts of Creationism.
The problem is you suppose that there invisible genetic barriers which make evolution from a common ancestor impossible. There has never been evidence provided for such a hypothesis, and various molecular biology research papers support common ancestry.
[edit to add]- You have been corrected on the claim about information before. Molecular information increases with evolution. Specified complexity doesn't, but specified complexity is irrelevant.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement