You wouldn’t if you were a researcher studying genomics, already understanding the relationship of chimps, humans and vitamin C, for instance.
If you would study some genomics yourself, it would help you understand better.
…which is why I phrased it as “give due consideration”.
Then you would be aware that natural phenomena exists which is not computable even when the mathematical foundations are sound, such as specific weather in three months.
In classical theology proper God is immanent and transcendent to creation. There is a lot to unpack there, in terms of the problem of evil, miracles, God’s will, and evolution. Such questions are outside the domain of science. However, just as developmental biology does not invalidate that we are fearfully and wonderfully knit together in the womb, evolution does not invalidate that nature declares the glory of God.
For all practical purposes, evolution, and mechanisms such as variation, adaptation, selection, and drift, are interacting facts of nature integral to biology. The ToE is a constructed framework, not uniformly defined in every detail. Pedantically speaking, “Theory of Evolution”, is of course, theory.
You don’t seem to have denied it, so maybe you are having second thoughts and hopefully might be beginning to see that there is a fallacy in your thinking?
As I do not accept your ridiculous view of the way the weather is formed it made any answer pointless.
You really do not have a clue about what I am saying, do you.
You think God is controlling evolution right?
But you keep arguing the scientific view whereby the control is by Natural selection.
The two explanations are mutually exclusive. They work in opposition. They cannot both work.
As long as you are arguing scientific methodology you are denyng God. Not because you cannot see HIm but because science can’t see Him. SO anybbody reading cannot see God in what you are saying.
You can argue that God controls science as much as you like, but that is not what people see when you are arguing science.
I am not saying that you cannot do science. I am saying you cannot argue using science.
Richard
What you did say is right there in front of us. You said you cannot even talk about science.
Again:
Why are you ignoring the question? If that is not what you meant to say, say it differently. What is the Christian meteorologist to talk about? Science? I guess not, according to you.
In other words, there can be no Christian meteorologists who are as godly as you are. That seems a little self-righteous to me.
1 Like
It means nothing of the kind!
Stop going on about God in the weather it is a red herring!
Richard
You still are not answering the simple question.
Okay, you don’t like to talk about the weather. Got it. There is a Christian vulcanologist on TV reporting about a recent volcanic eruption.
What is the Christian vulcanologist to talk about?
He’s not allowed to talk about the science without including God, right?
2 Likes
Do genomics explain how life on earth (allegedly) evolved from a common ancestor? Nope, not even close. Therefore the mystery remains.
Genomics and the fossil record jointly testify to the validity of the nested hierarchy of life (i.e., shared ancestry) and that that is how God created the wonderful diversity of life. Nested hierarchy ⇒ evolution, the method God used. So yes.
Wrong, and wrong again. The mystery that remains is how God wonderfully orchestrates providence.
1 Like
No one knows how God created the diversity of life. For example, no one can explain how mammals (allegedly) evolved from fish.
Ask evolution scientists how they would go about evolving a mammal from an ancient fish and they wouldn’t even know where to start.
Eternal mystery.
You’re just repeating yourself doesn’t help your argument. At all. Of course you can flip that and say the same thing about ‘us’. The little problem with that however is good science. Which you ain’t got. Check out something on genomics and read it.
[Maybe someone here might suggest a book or a website?]
1 Like
You haven’t asked one lately, have you. 
1 Like
I have taken this description of evolution and ecology (a search using AI):
Ecology and evolution are two fields of biology that are closely related. Ecology is the study of how organisms interact with each other and their environment, while evolution is the study of how organisms change over time through the process of natural selection. The two fields are interconnected because the environment plays a crucial role in shaping the evolution of organisms. For example, organisms that live in different environments may evolve different adaptations to help them survive in those environments. The study of ecology and evolution is important because it helps us understand how organisms have evolved to live in different environments and how they will continue to evolve in response to changes in those environments.
3 Likes
Well, that’s false, since it’s been shown in the lab that DNA can and does gain information.
= - = + = - = † = - = + = - =
Indeed the point of this thread is that to some science students and scientists evolution declares the glory of God.
3 Likes
And it would probably be absolutely incomprehensible and totally beyond any YECs imagination that anyone would or could come to Christ through it (especially since, according to some, YECism is required for salvation 
). That would apply to most any other evolution denier as well, which we see here too (and very recently ).
2 Likes
Name one scientist who knows how to evolve a mammal from an ancient fish … in other words, name one scientist who has actually evolved a mammal from an ancient fish.
Good luck with that …
It took quadrillions of mutations over several billion years, and you imagine it should be doable in a lab. What can I say graciously about your scientific acumen… I can’t think of anything. Imagine for yourself what I could say ungraciously.
Well, since no one can evolve a mammal from an ancient fish, no one can claim to know how a mammal evolved from an ancient fish.
Well, since one can connect the dots on a page to obtain a very recognizable picture, no one needs to know all the points in between them or even the ones to connect across the page to fill in detail.
And that is a very YEC-like argument.
Here, since you don’t know how to connect the dots…
(And when professionals connect the dots, the picture is a very nice and undeniable nested hierarchy.)
