Beautifully said, except that according to the scriptures He did orchestrate it, at least to the point of not letting the Adversary figure out what was going on, that death would be victory.
The best illustration I can recall at the moment is that of a bear and a bear trap: all the bears were getting caught in the trap and dying, but one bear came and deliberately walked into the trap so he could break it.
And that is what? It’s not transcendent Love is the problem. It’s entirely human is the problem. The problem eclipses your core whatever you behold. But you will not see it through the filter of your core.
Howso?
Again, howso?
You bizarrely contradict yourself in the next post:
At least on the hill. And forlornly hoping to make any headway here against those who put unknowledged faith before, as a filter of, knowledge. And diminish both.
You do not do that.
If that is your summary of the elements of evolution then you don’t have the knowledge you claim.
I do not have time to answer properly now, but, in the meantime you might work out the difference between, data, facts, hypothesis, understanding, and speculation.
Most of your statements muddled them up , making it impossible to just say yes or no.
Richard
@Apistos To answer your post properly
Variation Exists Within Populations Individuals of a species show genetic and phenotypic differences.
That is observable.
Traits Are Heritable Many variations are passed from parents to offspring through genes.
That is basic Mendelan genetics
Overproduction of Offspring More individuals are born than the environment can support’
Has little or nothing to do with evolutionary theory
Struggle for Existence Limited resources lead to competition among individuals.
That is ecology not evolution
Natural Selection Individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce.
That is the accepted definition of Natural Selection. However, If the traits are not random then it is not such a factor.
Differential Reproduction Favorable traits become more common in the population over generations.
That is a consequence of Natural Selection and fairly obvious t’boot
Descent with Modification Species change over time, and new species can arise from common ancestors.
Species change over time is just a repetition of the above
I dispute whether evolutionary change is enough to speciate.
Speciation Accumulated changes can lead to the formation of new species.
That is obvious, however it ignore the “jumps” between species . That is crossing a division to make it a separate species as opposed to a subspecies
Common Ancestry All life shares a common origin, branching out over time.
Not in the understanding of science. Whether life started simply and developed is not in dispute. Exactely how it developed, that is by random deviations, is
Common Ancestry is assumed to mean by evolution alone.
Adaptation to Environment Organisms evolve traits that enhance survival in specific ecological niches.
You are still repeating yourself.
it is not the existence of new traits or the results of them that are ever contested. It is how they occure (and why)
Your criteraia is incomplete and very shallow. it ignors the processes involved in evolutionary change, which is the heart of the opposition , not only by me.
Evolution is not just genetics. Evolution needs the mechanisms to change the DNA coding, and to know how that coding just “works”. As it stands we get a “plug and Play” derived from a DNA lottery whereby all that is needed is to “find” the correct code and “House” we have a new trait!
Despite the complaints for the scientists here, the language used to describe evolutionart changes implies both diagnosis of a need, and the ability to just provide it on demand. That may just be narrative and presentation, but it is innaccurate. Evolution cannot plan. It cannot diagnose, it cannot just produce the right adaption, and it cannot just casusally combine traits just because the end result is better!
Evolution is driven by chance. It has to be. The only alternative is design or guidance which involves some sort of intelligence. Without God (Science cannot use God) there is no intelligence in creation.
As it stands evolutionary theory cannot exlplain
Why there is any devlopment at all (as opposed to decay) Evolution implies development.
How complex structures or ecological systems can be made up without an intelligent guidance or understanding
How a creature can become a new species and still be compatible with its parent.
That the DNA comparisons prove ancestry, when they do not even now what the coding is, or how it works. IOW they specify the dots but cannot show the mechanisms to join them.
Define what is a “small” change.
I have answered your qestion but not using the parameters you provided which were woefully inadequate
Richard
If genetics didn’t work you wouldn’t be here. We know the mechanisms of how DNA changes, so I’m not really sure what you are on about here. The differences between species is due to differences in DNA, and I have already shown you the data demonstrating that those changes came from the same processes we observe making changes now.
Scientists really aren’t interested in how you misunderstand what they write.
Those that decay don’t reproduce.
Why would any intelligence be needed?
Why would they need to?
Why would we need to know what every last bit of DNA does in order for DNA to be evidence of common ancestry?
It’s a subjective description, so no definition is needed.
Wow, really?
Talk about missing the point and going off at a very wide tanget
How can you comae what you do not fully understand?
You could be comparing the spark of life, a skeleton, digestion, making of amino acides, cell division, you have no idea!
But they match! Snap!
It is not just me! It is not always about me! How insular can you get!
Ouch.
Um, er, everything decays. From the moment of incetion everything decays. It might be very slow, or even miniscule, but thee moment it interacts with its suroundings there is decay. The only reason a child grows is because it is growing quicker than it is dcaying. Perhaps you might notice that theteeth need replacing because? They decay!
How can you claim to be a scientist and not understand decay?
I am sorry, That is the reason for the confounded face. If you have to ask you clearly have no idea
So a new secies just appears? How is it going to be born? Or are you allowing God to create it out of thin air! The embryo has to be compatible wth its birth mother, if only to bemade as an egg.
See above. Why not compare my mother’s cherry cake recipe with Delia Smith’s? do they hae the same origin?
What a cop out!
“We don’t need to define the evolutionary change it just works!”
Brilliant.
I think you have just lost your credibility.
Richard
What claim is that?
That you know more about evolution than I do.
Richard
It’s not that difficult.
species 1 ATCG
species 2 ATCG
Those are 100% identical DNA sequences.
Physician, heal thyself.
You are right. It’s not about you, so why should we care what you think the language sounds like to you?
I understand it just fine. I thought you were using the ID/creationist term where each generation is accumulates deleterious mutations to the point that they are no longer viable.
If you can’t answer the question then you have no idea what you are talking about.
Why would offspring need to be compatible with their parents? What does that even mean? Why can’t new species evolve even if every generation is compatible with the next?
As modern English speakers we can’t natively understand Old English, yet there is an unbroken chain of English speakers from Old English to modern English with each generation being able to understand the one before it and the one after it. Speciation works in much the same way.
We use DNA comparisons to determine relatedness all of the time, such as maternity and paternity DNA tests.
Small is whatever you want it to be. It’s a subjective term.
He does.
(Filler)
Where do I claim that?
I find the literal translation of Genesis to be very misleading. The literal translation puts human limitations on God since words are a human creation. I favor what I call an epistemic translation of the Hebrew. Genesis 1:1-2 says, ‘In the beginning God created space and matter, and the matter was without form and void. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was moving over the fluid matter’. The earth is not formed until day 3 when the fluid matter is gathered into land and seas. Day 2 involves the fluid matter being gathered into stars and nebula. The days of creation are God’s view of the process. Rabbis call them divine days. We know from the theory of relativity that time is a variable depending on the observer. The human view of the creation process over time, based on what God’s creation tells us, can best be related to the divine days on a logarithmic scale. Day 1 of the creation is 14 billion years ago (bya). Each subsequent day is half the time of the previous day. So day 2 is 7bya, day 3 is 3.5bya, day 4 is 1.8bya, day 5 is 0.9bya, and day 6 is 0.45bya. Many natural processes can be represented on a logarithmic scale.
No contradiction. You’re missing the point of Genesis 2-4.
Or his insistence that his definitions are the ones that count.
No – the fact that you make such an insistence shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mutations are inevitable. Beneficial mutations are inevitable. Those two facts alone negate your claim.
Which is exactly what evolutionary theory says.
You’re treating it as though some kind of magic has to happen to get a new species. It doesn’t, as has been proven by a number of examples. One of my favorites is a chain of species of birds on the Atlantic coast of Europe, all descended from an initial population in southern France, but offspring who migrated north changed, and their offspring who migrated farther changed more, and so on, until those in the fourth population could no longer mate with those in the original population. At every step offspring looked like and were compatible with their parents, yet by the fourth population of offspring who had migrated they were a different species (as are the fifth and the sixth populations).
Come on – try responding to what you quoted instead of going with a knee-jerk unthinking reaction.
Nope. Given the type of literature, it is saying, “When God created, He began by making the heavenly realm and the earthly realm”, i.e. the immaterial and the material. Space in that conception (not that they knew about it) was part of the earthly realm.
Nope. Day 2 involves a ‘cavity’ being created within the Great Deep.
Riiiiiight. God didn’t ‘intend’ The Fall. It’s all our fault. He has to d.a.m.n us for that AND our scarlet personal sins that only our acceptance of his incarnate bleeding out at our bloodied hands can conditionally erase. Yeah, I do completely miss the point of this Loveless [barbarous] nonsense.
The question is asking for an opinion, not an academic analysis of the Bible as ancient Hebrew literature.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.