01 May '16 08:40>
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by KellyJayAfter all this time discussing this topic on this forum you still view the theory of evolution as being about "life starting from non-life"?
Yes depending on how you view both of them. For life to start from non-life and change over time goes against creation.
Originally posted by FMFWell technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
After all this time discussing this topic on this forum you still view the theory of evolution as being about "life starting from non-life"?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWell, abiogenesis and the theory of evolution are not one in the same thing. If you believe that they are, then you should perhaps edit your OP. There is still time.
Well technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkIt depends on how an individual interprets Biblical scripture and on how strident that individual is about their view of the theme in question.
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA creation myth is not necessarily incompatible with evolution since it can be sufficiently vague and/or not falsifiable. Any myth that is purely metaphysical will, by definition, not clash with any theory or understanding we have obtained from empirical science.
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
Well technically the evolution of living things would need a starting point and if you are an atheist that starting point would have to be abiogenesis.
Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
started would have had to change from how the first life was coded/made up from that
point on. It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
With respect to creation I can ...[text shortened]... hink on how many things in the WHOLE universe had to be
just right from the micro to the macro.
It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
Originally posted by KellyJayI raised this point in a different thread where it was ignored, but maybe you would like to give it a whirl. Suppose we take the micro-evolution hypothesis and assume it is valid. Then, for each species, there must be a part of their DNA that can change and a part that is immutable, otherwise the DNA cannot "remember" that it should only change "a little." By what mechanism is this segment of DNA protected from mutations? Can we see this happening in nature?
I don't care one wit about abiogenesis in this part of the discussion, the first life however it
started would have had to change from how the first life was coded/made up from that
point on. It is getting from that beginning point to the ones we see around us that I don't
believe is possible through evolutionary change.
With respect to creation I can ...[text shortened]... hink on how many things in the WHOLE universe had to be
just right from the micro to the macro.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkOh for the love of hippos!!
In your opinion are creation and evolution mutually exclusive?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo full fledged macro evolution is falsifiable ?
A creation myth is not necessarily incompatible with evolution since it can be sufficiently vague and/or not falsifiable. Any myth that is purely metaphysical will, by definition, not clash with any theory or understanding we have obtained from empirical science.