Jump to content

one.opinion

Royal Member
  • Posts

    5,240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

one.opinion last won the day on August 22 2021

one.opinion had the most liked content!

Reputation

1,356 Excellent

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

5,848 profile views
  1. I would NOT ride that train. The giant cat is SCARY!!
  2. I was raised in a conservative Christian home and this is exactly what I believed. Twelve years of education in biology and the evidence I consistently encountered slowly changed my mind. I will never look down on anyone for holding this personal belief. In moments of introspective honesty, I cannot say which is correct, either. I try to acknowledge terms like “I believe” and “the evidence supports”, but I probably do slip into language that indicates certainty from time to time. I agree with you 100% here. As I mentioned, I will never look down on anyone holding a belief in young earth creationism. I know as I grew up, and I know from what my own students have told me, there are many young earth creationists that hold the age of the earth question as one of primary importance, which it is not. I believe strict adherence to the view has led to many young people experiencing a crisis of faith when they do learn about the evidence supporting a much older earth and universe. That’s a very difficult question to answer. I can offer a bit of a comparison, though. Depending on the type of measurement used, the chimpanzee and human genomes are 95-98% similar. In one hand, the numbers indicate strong similarity. In the other hand, when considering the size of the genomes (about 3.2 billion base pairs), that 2-5% works out to be a LOT of small changes.
  3. We can’t live without any of these parts of the cardiovascular system (including the lungs, which are part of the respiratory system). However, the conclusion that they could not have evolved is a faulty assumption. Are you aware that there are many animals with some form of circulatory system, but without hearts? And millions of species that have hearts, but not blood vessels? Theses simpler versions of circulatory systems show us that it is possible for more complex circulatory systems to have evolved. Obviously not. No one believes this happens. But if a certain population of a species remained isolated, changes in that population could eventually become sufficient to prevent reproductive compatibility and become a new species as a result. This actually happened in populations of mice on a small island called Madeira over the last several hundred years. Just imagine what could happen over millions of years. Clearly living things produce offspring that are the same kind. There is no claim in the Bible that kinds are unchanged, and there is observable evidence to show us that living things do change over time.
  4. Are you asking for examples of molecular evolution, organismal evolution, or large-scale evolution. If you are looking for examples of large-scale evolution, they occur over millions of years and we’ve been paying attention to evolution about 150 years. It isn’t a reasonable request. There is a huge difference between evidence-supported conclusion and “speculative opinion” regarding the fossil record.
  5. No one knows what a “kind” is in scientific terms, let alone if there are physical barriers in place between them. I understand the hesitancy. It is difficult to imagine changes THAT considerable over even millions of years. The fossil evidence strongly suggests that modern reptiles and modern mammals did indeed share a common ancestor. Embarrassing for NASA, honestly, but as a member of the scientific community (I’m a biology professor), I promise that panspermia has never been anything other than a fringe idea.
  6. Evolution is a broad term. That’s why I was specific in my post. I used “molecular evolution” to refer to changes at the DNA level and “organismal evolution” to refer to changes in a species. The mechanisms and outcomes of of these types of evolution can be directly observed. Changes in allele frequencies and changes in phenotype are very commonly observed. The implications of these types of changes is that, given enough time, large scale changes can occur. The scientific community has known about evolution for roughly 150 years. This is clearly not enough time to directly observe origins of new organisms at higher taxonomic levels. Instead, we have to rely on indirect evidence, like the fossil record. The fossil record also strongly indicates large-scale evolution over periods of millions of years.
  7. Molecular and organismal evolution are observable facts. It is not unreasonable to conclude that what has been observed on small scale in a relatively short period of time could result in much larger changes over much larger periods of time. There is evidence supporting this thought. It is also not unreasonable to believe that God has used evolution to bring about His creative intent. Panspermia has only ever been a fringe and unsupported hypothesis.
  8. Yes, I’ve considered it. I just don’t think that’s the best explanation.
  9. That still sounds not at all like a perfect creation. This argument is not making a strong case for perfect humanity. God never called His creation of humanity perfect and now you argue that God’s intent in creation of humans was to lead the Son to a brutal death. No, this is not convincing at all as a case for the perfect creation of humanity. The case of humanity = perfect creation is getting even worse. It is inconsistent to claim (without Biblical statement) that humans were created perfect, but then request a specific Biblical claim for a separate idea. There is not a direct Biblical statement that says that Adam would have died without sin. There is however, God directly warning Adam that he would die the day he ate the forbidden fruit and then not physically dying that day. The implication is that the death that was experienced was spiritual. Additionally, we have consistent observation and logic to show us that humans die and no clear reason to assume that humans were ever created to be eternal.
  10. Why do you suppose that God didn’t call His creation of humanity “perfect” if that would have been a better description than “very good”? Additionally, do you think it possible that a perfect human could sin? That doesn’t sound very perfect to me. It is certainly possible that the death brought on by sin is spiritual, and not physical. I still believe the conclusion that humanity was not perfect is unwarranted.
  11. The Bible never makes that claim. Where did you come up with that? This speculation is based on an erroneous assumption. God said His creation of humanity was “very good”, not perfect. Of course I do. I’m pretty sure we all do here.
  12. It isn’t just my opinion. If you had a baby born with all female parts, I’ll bet you would call it a female.
  13. I'm talking about an XY individual being essentially a female.
  14. In most cases, this is true. But there are many cases (in a world of billions of people) when it isn't. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001180.htm There are VERY few absolute rules in biology. The human X chromosome contains many genes necessary for sustaining the organism and the Y doesn't. Essentially, the chromosome we associate with "femaleness" is essential and the chromosome we associate with "maleness" isn't. That's worth thinking about. Males can also have an extra X chromosome. It's pretty fascinating stuff. I'm chasing a side trail, but it is a fun side trail.
  15. Not at all - science does not point away from God, but illustrates His majesty, creativity, and His power that defies human imagination. After all, science is the study of the physical work of His hands in the form of living things.
×
×
  • Create New...