Just like a baker isn’t interested in applying a brake system manual to producing a cake.
Richard, you’re asking that science become metaphysics when the whole point of science is to avoid such subjective claptrap.
1 Like
You don’t get to decide the point of my posts to other people.
Feel free to name any criticisms that disprove ToE instead, then.
You haven’t launched any ships.
You think lots of things that aren’t true.
I do not agree with that claim…God most definitely has everything to do with the topic…he created all of this in the first place. We cannot talk design/creation without also noting the designer/creator.
One of the, for me at least, significant issues with separating God and science is that excluding the writings of the bible from science allow for woefully inadequate and just plain wrong theology and doctrine. Its that kind of nonsense that gives rise to individuals who pillage their followers for hundreds of millions of dollars…the likes of Kenneth Copeland who manages to convince his followers that God is leading him to preach that they give $3 million for a private Jet and another $2.5 million for hangar/runway/aircraft upgrades so that “pastor copeland” can avoid flying in commercial jets with “demons”!
Whats truly shocking about this mans supposed ministerial training…
Kenneth attended just 2 years of Oral Roberts University training commencing in 1967…the university did not receive its HLC (Higher Learning Comission) acreditation until 1971. So any claim that Kenneth has formal theological pastoral training with an accredited university is a stretch…especially given that university was first dedicated on 2 April 1967 (barely 2 years before Copeland commenced study there). This tells me that Oral Roberts university is founded on some rather shady individuals like Kenneth Copeland…i wonder if he isnt one of the universities “silent” founders? In any case, God apparently told him to attend that university in 1966 (the year BEFORE it was dedicated)
By comparison, most modern biblical theologians must complete a full bachelor of Arts degree…this is 3 to 4 years of full time heavy theological and ancient languages training with acredited/qualified lecturers (usually with Ma as a bare minimum and PhD preferred). The university my father studied at…theology had an extremely high attrition rate…a very large number of starters did not make it to the finish line.
Unlike Copelands habits, we should preach facts that align with scripture…not generate scripture to align with so called “facts”. Copelands woeful theology and con is an example of what happens when scripture is not the first source of authority and internal referencing.
Science doesn’t prove things, that’s math.
Science models things and some models make better sense of available empirical evidence than others.
The diversification of life on earth is extremely well modeled by the evolutionary model of common descent. There is also a good model (endosymbiosis) for how complex eukaroyotic cells developed from simpler prokaryotic cells.
The origin of life on earth has not been definitively modeled, though there are models for how the basic chemicals needed for life may have been synthesized and a realm of research called RNA world that is exploring interesting possibilities. No Christian should base their faith or their apologetics for faith on the idea that there isn’t and will never be a possible natural explanation for the origin of life. That’s God of the Gaps thinking, and it’s usually disappointing.
4 Likes
According to the “solid” theory of evolution, how did the venom gland in a venomous snake come to be connected to its fangs?
How did venomous snakes evolve hollow fangs? (I read a paper regarding this question and it was so weak and lame, i don’t know why the author bothered.)
Neither can the “solid” theory of evolution explain how the double-circulation heart of tetrapod evolved from the single-circulation heart of a fish … a transition that something akin to a two-stroke engine evolving into a four-stroke engine.
I not rejecting evidence “for evolution”. I’m rejecting the claim that it’s cause can be known.
What “overwhelming” evidence is there that a natural process was responsible for the double-circulation heart of a tetrapod (allegedly) evolving from the single-circulation heart of a fish?
I don’t consider minor variations within a species to be “an overwhelming amount of evidence” that a natural process being responsible for the Cambrian biota evolving from the Ediacaran biota, for example.
Diversification, yes, but Evolution claims of ancestry go beyond diversification, and that is the main criticism…
It started with the Galapagos finches etc and evolution works fine within that framework. The problem is that scientists have extrapolated beyond the basic evidence.
There is no mechanism to make the bigger changes that ToE claim, and there is no Natural reason why Nature should invent limbs or organs or complex systems or Ecological harmony/ It is those things that point to God., and it is those things that Science cannot explain away.
Richard
1 Like
In other words, you can’t prove that any evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record is the result of a natural process. That doesn’t come as a surprise to me.
oh i would seriously challenge that claim Christy…whether or not you agree with the YEC scientist conclusions, the criticisms present below are scientific nevertheless…and there are a a number of significant ones in the criticism below;
The endosymbiotic theory, which proposes that mitochondria and chloroplasts originated from free-living bacteria engulfed by early eukaryotic cells, faces challenges in explaining the origin of certain cellular structures and the precise mechanisms of endosymbiosis. While evidence like similar membrane structure and DNA, and mode of replication supports the theory, some discrepancies and gaps in understanding remain, particularly regarding the evolution of complex cellular processes.
Here’s a more detailed look at the problems:
- Origin of Eukaryotic Cells: The theory primarily focuses on the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts, not the origin of the eukaryotic cell itself. It doesn’t fully explain how the host cell, the archaeon, came to possess the necessary characteristics to engulf and establish a symbiotic relationship with bacteria.
- Lack of Universal Acceptance for Explanations of All Organelles: While mitochondria and chloroplasts have strong supporting evidence, other organelles within the eukaryotic cell lack universally accepted explanations for their origins, even after extensive research.
- Explaining Complex Processes: The theory struggles to explain the origin of complex processes like ATP formation and photosynthesis within bacteria and cyanobacteria before they were engulfed by the host cell.
- Genetic Transfers and Genome Evolution: The theory needs to account for the extensive genetic transfer that occurred between the endosymbiont and the host cell’s nucleus, leading to the current state where most mitochondrial genes are found in the nucleus.
- Discrepancies in Genome Structure: While mitochondria have circular DNA similar to bacteria, some mitochondria have linear (or straight) DNA, which presents a challenge to the theory’s explanation of DNA replication.
- Independent Survival: While mitochondria and chloroplasts cannot survive independently outside the host cell, the theory posits that they were once free-living organisms, which creates a conceptual challenge.
- Incomplete and Contaminated Metagenomes: Analysis of metagenomic data, which involves sequencing DNA from environmental samples, can be problematic, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions about the presence and function of genes and molecules involved in endosymbiosis.
- Reticulation in Phylogenies: The theory needs to account for the fact that evolutionary trees are not always strictly bifurcating, as symbiosis can lead to branches that fuse back together, a phenomenon known as reticulation.
- Loss of Endosymbionts: In some cases, endosymbionts are lost from the host cell, and the theory needs to explain how these secondary losses impact the overall evolutionary narrative.
- Evolutionary Changes in Endosymbiont Genomes: The theory doesn’t fully address the massive evolutionary changes that can occur in the genomes of endosymbionts themselves, potentially leading to extinctions of lineages. (see image of sources below this post…too many to cite)
Then to be fair a non Christian source states the following:
Endosymbiosis was an idea that provided a remarkable amount of explanatory power to observations about eukaryotic organelles. But it also promoted a few assumptions that have been less well-examined, and here we look at two of these. The first is the idea that some endosymbiotic relationships that are assumed to be mutualistic, such as nutritional symbioses and eukaryotic organelles, are not in fact power struggles mush as we assume many other ecological interactions to be. The second is that endosymbiotic merger between organelles and their hosts involved the acquisition of a great many genes that took on functions in the host. New data from other endosymbiotic systems and the organelles themlseves suggest some of our hypotheses about organelle origins and distribution may be misled by the expectation that such genes exist and persist in large numbers. Endosymbiosis: the feeling is not mutual - PMC
And i note the following in the research paper…
Most importantly, if organelle endosymbionts donated a lot of genes for now-cytosolic proteins, then we should be able to “see” evidence for now-lost organelles in the nuclear genomes of their erstwhile hosts. This idea rests on the assumption that, because these genes have acquired a function independent of the organelle, they will be retained even when the organelle is lost or replaced.
If true, this would be a powerful tool in the reconstruction of evolutionary history
What if its not true? Given its a hypothesis, a lot is riding on this and certainly i would not be placing my faith in an unproven hypothesis that may or may not be true!
and the author goes on to state the following:
these conclusions are dependent on an assumption (that organelle derived genes will be kept in large numbers when the organelle is lost) that is itself built on another assumption (that those genes were transferred and retained in the first place), and neither has been thoroughly tested. In the almost two decades since the original analyses supporting the presence of large-scale transfers of genes from the organelle endosymbiont for proteins that do not function in the organelle (e.g., Martin et al., 1998),
(Sources for Criticisms of Endosymbiosis theory- google “problems in the theory of endosymbiosis”)
In other words, you can’t prove that any evolutionary transition evident in the fossil record is the result of a natural process. That doesn’t come as a surprise to me.
1 Like
Fascinating. How did you prove that every evolution transition evident in the fossil record is the result of a natural process?
I think what you’re trying to say is, you can’t prove that any evolutionery transition evident in the fossil record was the result of a natural process.
If you believe God created the universe and life on earth supernaturally, why would you then assume that the evolution of that life is devoid of supernatural influence?
Post deleted
The topic is science. Science doesn’t include the supernatural.
Er, no … the processes are not known. All that’s known is that you believe your theory is true.
There’s no way you can prove, for example, that the Cambrian biota evolved from the Edicaran biota via the natural processes you mention. Therefore you can’t claim that the processes are known.
On the hand, if you’re correct and the processes are known, please describe the steps involved in the evolutionary journey from fish to mammal, including the mutations and selective pressures at play. Then demonstrate that the steps you’ve decribed are not just a figment of your imagination, but are actually what happened. Good luck with that.
Not one mention of the supernatural have I uttered.
This is classic creationism. Whatabout this, that, missing link? Then when another predicted intermediate transition is found, the complaint is now there are two missing links. But like frames in a movie, as more is discovered, the frame rate is higher and the movie is smoother. The nested hierarchy is well supported by the fossil record and mechanisms of evolution.
The overall body of evidence does not leave reasonable doubt. In the science community, evolution is, to use the term colloquially, proven. However, being proven does not required being proven to your personal satisfaction. Your repeated demand for proof is irrelevant to the status of evolution as the accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.
4 Likes
This game of picking out some detail to demand an explanation after every other biological feature which has been investigated has confirmed an origin in natural processes is lame in the extreme. That is only part of the overwhelming evidence. Every single examination of the genetics of organisms has yielded the same result – a nested hierarchy of relationship showing biological descent from a common origin so that we calculate when each species has diverged from any other. While you run desperately from one failed hope of a counter example to another to support your fantasies, the rest of us choose to live in real world. And we believe Christianity has value for people living in the real world and does not require living in your fantasy world.
Is this supposed to be some example of irreducible complexity? two chamber hearts and four chamber hearts with nothing in between? one circulatory system and double circulatory system with nothing in between? If you think so then you are wrong. There are species with three chamber hearts and species with a mix of single and double circulatory systems. And where you would expect this between fish and mammals… amphibians? Yep.
2 Likes
And? Are you denying God created? Why not leave Him something to create!
Science hates that, because it cannot give an answer. It just fudges round them.
No it is not supported by the mechanisms of Evolution, they are woefully inadequate.
Forgive the misquote, but that is what it should say.
Wrong again. it is not accepted it is forced and indoctrinated. Most people do not have enough information to make an accurate choice.
Richard
1 Like
I don’t know about that … mainly bcoz I don’t know what you’re talking about.