A wonderful Sunday greetings to all of you!
The Lord works in myterious ways.
If he decides he wants to use evolution as his method, who are we to argue with his intentions.
Now if only they would learn something about it...
But that may be asking too much, as Heinlein so eloquently phrased it:
Belief gets in the way of learning.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
“The probability of a protein forming by chance would be 1064 [10 with 64 zeros after it] to 1!”
This is not a good argument, because both a lot of chance is involved, and the patterns that they form are mathematically derived. A good comparison is to say that it would be very unlikely that carbon atoms would form a molecule in the shape of a soccer ball. But they do, because they can readily assemble into that kind of shape, and when they do, it is very stable. So once it happens, 64 carbon atoms tend to stay that way.
Amino acids also tend to form patterns like that. And once they do, they tend to form patterns that can be duplicated by other, independent amino acids, that affix themselves to the first pattern and form a mirror image.
The zinger is a huge amount of time for this to take place. From the time they can do this, to the time they actually pull it off and make a complex protein, may be a couple of billion years or more.
Eventually you end up with a complex protein, best described as looking like a steel wool pad, made up of a great number of compression and tension springs. It can be stretched out into a single wire, but when you let go, it consistently reassembles into the exact same pad of steel wool.
The odds of it coming together spontaneously are tiny, this is true. But over a vast length of time, and a lot of trial and error, less so.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.
No, it isn't.
Yes it is. Dinosaurs.
No, it isn't. Birds.
Yes, it is. Fossils.
No, it isn't. God.
Yes, it is. God made it all including evolution.
No, it isn't. Bible.
There. The thread should be finished.
Strawman. Automatic [auto-F]
Evolution is completely and fully compatible with Christianity.
Abiogenesis is highly improbable. I think evolution is highly improbable too. It makes sense that natural selection occurs in a conservative sense. Three legged deer, and myopic eagles are unlikely to survive. But what are the odds that an error in reproduction will lead to improvement? Very low.
The best evidence for evolution seems to be with viruses and bacteria. New strains of bacteria arise that are resistant to antibiotics. This suggests that a new and improved strain has arisen by chance and selection. But it’s my understanding that once antibiotics are removed, the new strain is out-competed by earlier strains. So there was no unambiguous improvement after all. This is like the sickle cell mutation that helps people resist malaria. Absent malaria, the mutation is simply harmful.
I think the comparison between global warming and evolution is apt. The science is not settled in either case, despite the fact that many loud voices insist that it is settled. True science thrives on independent thinking, not publicly funded consensus and mass produced opinion.
Faith isn't science.
Something is considered scientifically true only if it can be repeatedly verified under laboratory conditions.
So, then, all of astrophysics is invalid? If someone has repeatedly created a star under laboratory conditions, I missed the memo.
That is why evolution remains only a theory.
In such sketchy company as gravity.
An elegant solution.
I wish people would not confound evolution per se with a theory of evolution (like Darwin’s original, long since replace with the more refined neo-Darwinian synthesis, or Lamark’s long since discredited at the gross morphological level, though there are hints at a possible Lamarkian mechanism at the biochemical level).
Evolution is the undoubted fact that allele frequencies change over time. What may be debated is whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis provides a complete account of this phenomenon and suffices to explain speciation completely. What should be doubted by all, and flatly rejected by theists of every persuasion, is the adduction of atheism from a naturalistic account of biological diversity.
I commend to your attention Alexander Kalomiros's "The Six Dawns", which can be read here.
Variation within species is a fact since we’re clearly not clones of each other.
But nothing will ever make evolution a fact no matter how much some people wish it to be. All it is is extrapolation and deduction based on the remains of some long dead specimens.
It MUST be; for EVERY media outlet claims it to be so.
I’m hoping this question belongs in this forum....if not, I’m sure someone will let me know
I’ve always had a curious fascination with the fall of Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels who rebelled against the authority of God. Obviously this happened before Eve was tempted by Satan, but when did it happen? Are there any clues in the Bible explaining it?
Of course, I know about the ‘gap theory’ but I dont’ know if that is a widely accepted view, or if there is really any validity to it anyway?
Comments?
By this I mean would it not make sense for the survival of all species that they be dependent upon themselves for reproduction.
How and why did nature decide that it would or could take the chance for two to reproduce? This seems to be quite risk for a organism to survive.
Sometimes....
(::::See my Tagline::::)
Is that a theological question?