Posted on 03/02/2015 7:49:16 AM PST by Salvation
Cycling at night after work has given me many “moon moments”, where I look up at “that faithful witness in the sky” and just glory in the work of my Father in heaven and the One He made everything through...JESUS.
Sounds kinda corny, but it’s real to me.
Also, I work near the flight path to a major airport and have a similar thrill watching the jets take off and land not far over our building. Flight amazes me and is yet another proof of “Order! Order”, lest the planes fail to lift or land based on typically predictable atmospheric truth. Engine failure is another matter...
No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record. As I’m sure you know, there is a theory of evolution which has made great strides in filling in the why of the nineteenth century discussion of biology. Darwinism is a pejorative applied the evolutionary theory which attempts to color modern science with the ambiguity and falsehoods of the past. The questions have been answered and scientists are looking at new questions.
The questions have been “answered” without any regard to “teleological impulse.” That bespeaks falsehood in any other endeavor, but somehow it has been enshrined in the folly which has come to be falsely called science.
And Darwinism is a quite accurate term for what is actually being called upon to drive this thing. If it is pejorative it is because it is actually inferior.
I don’t do teleological, I don’t think theology and science mix.
Talking about the science of a creation without reference to a creator — that’s like talking about the science of sociology without reference to people.
It is nonsense, regardless of what you “don’t like.”
No, evolution and the geologic record support each other. Radiometric dating further supports the fossil record.
Interesting.
Do they “support” each other or do they “Depend” on each other?
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but as Darwinian theory was gaining traction they NEEDED the conclusions of other aspects of science to maintain the theory.
To think that politics or ideology being used to corrupt science is something new would be very shortsighted.
As I look into the TOE, I can’t overcome the mathematics required, the pure numbers.
Most mutations literally kill the species or leave it unable to reproduce. The number of “Random Mutations” required to change, say, a cow like animal into a whale must number into the tens and tens of thousands.
Along the way you would expect to see hundreds if not thousands of intermediaries, yet they claim to have discovered four.
There is something really wrong here.
Then we have “Irreducible Complexity”. What are the odds that a random mutation would be conserved long enough to first not kill the thing, second to allow for reproduction, long enough for another random mutation to come long and provide some survival benefit based on a changing environment?
The math is insane.
The evolutionists have known that this is a huge problem and in order to solve the problem, they add time out of necessity.
guided by the environment.. Guided, that is a purpose filled word. Just who is this environment who leads toward a goal? not random, order. leads to survive ability. leads to organisms. Something that creates life. We used to call Him God.
The whole universe shouts, “Order! Consistency! Intelligibility!
Intelligibility was the kicker for me.
It is extraordinary and nearly mathematically impossible that we can know anything if you believe what the evolutionists would want you to believe.
The fact that Humans on this planet, at this time, have the ability to even do real meaningful science is nuts.
The evolutionists counter this with, “but we can, therefore evolution is true”. And in order to make the math work they need to invoke a Multi-Verse theory that is unprovable, and they call it science.
I’m not talking about “the science of creation” I’m talking about the geology and biology of change and it’s time frame.
Most evolution is by genetic drift, not mutation although mutation is very important. There are a great many inheritable variations within a species. Some people have red hair, some are tall, some can digest milk easily. If it benefits people in one region, ( ie being tall to look over grass, using milk as a food by herders, being more attractive to females who like red hair ) that region will have more tall milk drinkers although other traits exist in portions of the population. If the people in that region remain isolated, the differences from the species as a whole will most likely accumulate to the point were the isolated trabecular can no longer breed with the other groups.
Evolutionary change happens most rapidly due to drastic changes in climate (environment). The greatest spur to evolutionary change was the great oxygenation event. All types of multicellular life expanded, protective shells and exoskeletons , etc. developed as life spread into many new areas. 2,600 minerals that hadn’t existed before come into the geologic record.
That’s what I mean by “guided”.
So, the neck of the Giraffe is really long so it can eat from the higher branches?
BTW, the beaks of the finch are still on a finch.
A Great Dane is as much a dog as a Chihuahua and neither will ever be anything but dogs.
Your understanding of evolutionary theory reads like a fifth graders text book from the 1970’s.
Jim,
I’m sorry but when you really look at BOTH sides of this issue, there are only TWO possibilities.
Life on Earth is either the result of Aliens or that of God, and the alien theory doesn’t exclude God.
But the large, hard beaked finches can no longer mate successfully with small narrow beaked finches. Speciation = evolution. Do you really think that I would be better off using the technical language of biology? Also, genetic drift was not understood in the 1970s as it is today.
But the large, hard beaked finches can no longer mate successfully with small narrow beaked finches. Speciation = evolution.
How in the world can you call that Speciation?
It’s still a Finch and will either survive or go extinct as a finch.
When you breakdown Darwinian Evolution honestly, the biology, it’s death.
Genetic drift?
Please explain how that works to create new species.
The definition of a species is creatures or plants that can successfully mate and have full functioning offspring. Thus, there are many species of birds but they are all birds. There are many species of mammals but they are all mammals. The finches are a good example of genetic drift.
To be clear.
Species is easy, speciation is another story all together.
A simple search of the definition would yield results that show, based on your posts, that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Best of luck.
I didn’t review my last post and thus it wasn’t clear. Sorry. The definition of a species is animals or plants that can mate and have fully functioning offspring. When successful mating is no longer possible, you have different species. A horse and a donkey can mate but the offspring is most often unable to reproduce — a mule. Thus, although they appear similar and doubtless have common ancestor, horses and donkeys are separate species.
The missing element for understanding change is time. Most animals have very short lifetimes and they reproduce often. That’s a lot of opportunity for mutations and some drift. When you consider genetic drift and mutation over thousands and even millions of years, you can grasp evolution. Sometime back in time every animal and every plant has a common ancestor. Look up a modern (ie 2014 ) representation of the tree of life and you’ll see what I mean.
So we have come full circle with the NEED for time in-order to MAKE the TOE work.
When successful mating is no longer possible, you have different species./i>
No. When successful mating is no longer possible you actually have extinction.
Darwin made a big deal out of dog breeding. Nevermind they are still dogs. To get a "Chocolate Lab" breeders breed yellow labs with black labs. You can't get a chocolate lab by breeding two chocolate labs no matter how many times you try.
When successful mating only occurs among a sub population but no longer is possible with the larger population you have a new species like the large beak finch or the donkey vs horse.
Yes, is it so unusual that time or more specifically number of generations is required? Seems clear to me.
Will dogs continue to be the same species? Or will they branch into little dogs who can no loner mate with big dogs. Anyhow, without human intervention it is very doubtful that any of today’s dogs would exist.
There must be something in the gene allele where there are two recessive traits involved for the labs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.