Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,488
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

394 Excellent

4 Followers

About one.opinion

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,530 profile views
  1. While interbreeding is a possibility, most speciation occurs when two populations are separated, usually by geography. Typically, these populations remain separated while they both accumulate genetic differences that eventually eliminate the possibility of interbreeding. For example, lions and tigers do not share the same territory in nature. Although they can still interbreed in captivity, they don't naturally because they do not have the opportunity. They will eventually lose reproductive compatibility, provided both species survive long enough!
  2. That may be, but I still don't understand what you are saying.
  3. I'm not a paleontologist, by any stretch, but I do believe it is a fair point that there are significant gaps in the record of those very ancient fossils. However, I'm sure it could be argued that the Ediacarans were precursors to the Cambrians. Also, there are older fossils than the Ediacarans that are likely to be considered precursors. It is also important to remember that the Ediacaran period lasted nearly 100 million years and the Cambrian "explosion" lasted an estimated 15-25 million years. These organisms did not appear all at the same time as would be expected for separate creation events. I'm not sure if you are arguing for a single creation event 6000 years ago (young earth creation), or multiple creation events hundreds of millions of years ago and separated by millions of years (progressive creation). Out of the two options, I would say the progressive creation model fits the evidence better, but I don't remember you arguing this position before. Personally, I believe that creation through evolution is the best fit for the available evidence.
  4. Although I generally wouldn't recommend reading the thoughts of PZ Myers (he's pretty much an anti-creation jerk), he does have a pretty good explanation of how a lot of the popular science about the DNA barcoding story is misleading. You can check it here - https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2018/06/07/writing-synopses-of-science-articles-is-hard/ The fact that lions and tigers can interbreed is not evidence against evolution, any more than that fact that cats and dogs CAN'T interbreed is evidence FOR evolution. It simply doesn't work that way. Scientific evidence does strongly suggest that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals (and Denisovans, and a few others) were able to successfully interbreed. This is not evidence against evolution, either. It certainly doesn't disprove evolution. I'm not real clear on why you think so.
  5. This is venturing a little from the OP, and it may be better to start another thread. I've already asked @Who me if they are interested in discussing evolution in a new thread, but I'll give them some time to decide. In any case, the earth is not a closed system, it is constantly receiving energy from the sun. So it is entirely possible for living things to increase in complexity. This happens all the time during embryogenesis - what starts as a single cell becomes increasingly more complex as cells divide and differentiate until you have an organism ready for birth/hatching/etc that may consist of trillions of cells - pretty complex! Yes, mutations are sometimes harmful, and some are even deadly. However, neutral mutations (with respect to fitness) are much more common (since mutations in protein-coding sequences make up a very small portion of many genomes) and produce the raw material required for adaptation through natural selection. The idea that natural selection is the ONLY process required for evolution was discarded decades ago (see neutral theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution). There are a couple of things I'd like to address in this statement. First, I agree that the molecular assembly (proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and others) required for the first cells is extremely difficult for me to imagine occurring WITHOUT a Creator. However, I believe that once those first cells were in place, naturalistic explanations for the development of life over time become much more feasible. While I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support a purely naturalistic origin of life, I believe the evidence is in favor of God creating through the process of evolution. In the words of 19th century priest (and several other interests), Charles Kingsley:
  6. The DARPA research has never been about altering genetics. There have been several lines of research in developing "exoskeleton" suits to enhance human performance, and there has been significant research into drugs used to enhance performance, but nothing on alteration of genetics. Until very recently, this was only an abstract concept, though scientists now have the tools to specifically alter DNA in embryos. There have even been children born after they were genetically altered as embryos, but there has been NOTHING (yet) to genetic enhancement of super soldiers. Nothing yet has been done at the genetic level. How do we know? There isn't a definition for what a "kind" is, so it is impossible to say whether they will change on their own or not. Yes, and with enough accumulated changes, the adaptations can extend far beyond the species level. I didn't ask for a book, but perhaps you could at least provide a single example. As I asked earlier, can you give an (one will do for now) example of an experiment to change the "boundary" of a "kind"? I didn't see any response to this statement. Can you provide Biblical evidence that states that "kinds" cannot change?
  7. This is exactly my point. We are not the original audience for the Scriptures, yet many behave as though the modern English translations supersede the original text and context. To fully understand Genesis 8:21, we need to think of the original language and the original audience. To the original audience of Genesis, "eretz" was not necessarily the entire planet. As with a LOT of ancient Hebrew, many of the terms and phrases are indeed ambiguous. This is one of the reasons it is puzzling to me that people select a single term from a range of possibilities and insist that the one definition is the correct one - and anyone that believes another definition may make more sense is obviously wrong and quite likely a heretic. *Note: Argosy, your responses here have been well-considered and well-expressed. I am not pointing my finger at you, here.
  8. Dennis, are you talking about biological evolution or the Big Bang? The two are very different things. I'm not much of a physicist, but I can assure you that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports biological evolution. To me, the best answer for "how did this all get here" is a Creator whose will is the root of all of physical existence, and I believe the physical evidence that has been uncovered is strongly supports the idea that God used evolution of the life He created to bring about what we can now directly observe. There are a sizable number of Christ-following "idiots" like me that accept the evidence for common descent of living organisms, so don't limit your criticism to just the "secular idiots" out there! Of course living organisms produce progeny according to "their kind", it would be truly mind-blowing if a fish laid some eggs that hatched into mammals. There is not a single word in the Bible that states that a "kind" is some invariable classification that could not possibly ever change. The concept of the unchanging kind is entirely a human idea, not based on anything Biblical. Please be more specific in your broad statement. Can you give an example of an experiment to change the "boundary" of a "kind"? Who stated this? Where was it stated? This is sounds quite a bit like some outlandish statements derived through many rounds of hearsay without a single bit of substantiating evidence (except for the large number of people that have reached triple-digit ages without any sort of modification). Be very careful making claims like this that are not supported by fact - it makes the rest of your information suspect.
  9. But you did the exact same thing when dealing with Genesis 8:21. How is your evaluation of this passage in light of modern scientific knowledge different? I have an even better suggestion. What God has revealed through His Word AND what He has revealed through His works are BOTH true! So it is important to determine how the two coincide. This is probably not the thread for it, but I would be happy to start a new thread to discuss why you think evolution is unscientific. Are you up for it?
  10. Agreed, it wouldn’t make sense for “every living thing” to have died, but that is exactly the language that is used. That is my point. People insist that the “eretz” must refer to the entire planet even though the word is much more flexible, but then when we get to “every living thing”, then we can disregard the word choice of the Bible. Now that doesn’t make sense.
  11. Are you suggesting that we now have scientific knowledge that the original Genesis human author and audience lacked? And we should perhaps evaluate the language of the Bible in light of people that would have no concept of modern science?
  12. I agree that the language seems very clear, but the language in chapter 8 is even stronger. "Every living thing" would include plants, fungi, and bacteria, wouldn't it? And these would be absolutely essential to reestablishing living ecosystems on the planet that would have been wiped out. How would you defend a literal interpretation of this language?
  13. Did God truly destroy all life? Others have argued that most aquatic life survived. What about plant life and microbial life? It is difficult to see how life on the planet survived if we take the entire account literally.
  14. Do you understand the difference between rejecting the Word of God and disagreeing with someone’s interpretation of the Word? I do not reject the Word of God. I disagree with your interpretation.
  15. Excellent, you are making progress. I think we can safely put aside the argument that the words of Jesus support a global flood (and a creation period of 144 hours). Now we can move on to the actual account of the flood in Genesis. The Hebrew word eretz that is often translated into “the earth” does not specifically define the whole globe. More frequently, the word as used in the OT refers to a more localized area. I am not attempting to accept a local flood, but I am attempting to convince you that I can be true to the Bible and accept a different viewpoint. There is a deeply-rooted prejudice among evangelicals in the US that acceptance of a local flood viewpoint is dangerously contrary to the Bible itself. You appear to have discovered that one of the pieces of evidence supporting this prejudice, the teachings of Jesus Christ, does not actually say what many think it does and is not evidence of a global flood, after all. For about the fifth time in this thread, I have never claimed these things (flood and creation) didn’t happen. I believe they happened in a different way than you do. Do you see the difference?
×
×
  • Create New...