Scientists say...

[TagliatelliMonster]

Someone said "There is no definable distinction between Microevolution and Macroevolution".

What silly nonsense!

It's not nonsense to someone who actually knows what evolution is about instead of arguing the strawmen we find on creationist propaganda sites.

It's like saying that a grain of sand and the shore of the beach are the same thing.

No.

It's like saying that walking 5m and walking 20 miles are both accomplished by the same process of "walking", the only difference being the amount of steps.

 

[Eli G]

Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution, as a cup of water is just accumulated drops.
How would the small changes you acknowledge avoid accumulating, over time?

Mutations don't accumulate like grains of sand to form beaches like new species... It doesn't work like that. Mutations have limits that they cannot exceed; If you had basic knowledge of genetics you would know. It's like the game of Jenga: there is a point where you can no longer place a block on top of the last one, because everything falls down and you have to start over.

This is how God's creation works from the beginning, and that is why all the original animal species subsist in some of their variants, and life continues to reproduce as it was stipulated from the beginning: information continues to be transmitted through DNA from parents to descendants.

You will never see new kinds (compared to wider classifications, like phylum or others) of life that have not existed since the origin of creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mutations don't accumulate like grains of sand to form beaches like new species... It doesn't work like that. Mutations have limits that they cannot exceed; If you had basic knowledge of genetics you would know. It's like the game of Jenga: there is a point where you can no longer place a block on top of the last one, because everything falls down and you have to start over.

This is how God's creation works from the beginning, and that is why all the original animal species subsist in some of their variants, and life continues to reproduce as it was stipulated from the beginning: information continues to be transmitted through DNA from parents to descendants.

You will never see new kinds (compared to wider classifications, like phylum or others) of life that have not existed since the origin of creation.

Prove it. You do not just get to make a claim. Meanwhile scientists can measure such changes. They can support their claims with scientific evidence. You simply handwave and claim that unsupported nonsense is fact.

 

[Eli G]

Somebody is claiming someone to prove him that information goes through the DNA from parents to descendants ... Somebody help him, please.

 

[shunyadragon]

Somebody is claiming someone to prove him that information goes through the DNA from parents to descendants ... Somebody help him, please.

Your intentional ignorance of science based on a ancient religious agenda is what needs help . .

 

[Unfettered]

There was a start to the universe. Kind of, more or less. Like it blasted from a teeny, tiny substance. Moses knew the universe had a beginning. How did he know that? No telescopes, no space travel...so how do you think Moses knew that there was a beginning to the existence of the universe including the earth?

God revealed it to him. That is how any person may know things that are not otherwise, at a given time, knowable.

 

[YoursTrue]

God revealed it to him. That is how any person may know things that are not otherwise, at a given time, knowable.

I have to agree with you here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Somebody is claiming someone to prove him that information goes through the DNA from parents to descendants ... Somebody help him, please.

Do pretzels have dna? Mayb someone here knows...

 

[YoursTrue]

Prove it. You do not just get to make a claim. Meanwhile scientists can measure such changes. They can support their claims with scientific evidence. You simply handwave and claim that unsupported nonsense is fact.

Let me ask you a question, please. Do you claim there is no God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me ask you a question, please. Do you claim there is no God?

No, I lack a believe in a God. Do you understand the difference?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I lack a believe in a God. Do you understand the difference?

I'm thinking...I understand if a person says he believes there is no God. he means he believes no God exists, but I do not understand what it means to lack belief in a God. Can you please explain?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm thinking...I understand if a person says he believes there is no God. he means he believes no God exists, but I do not understand what it means to lack belief in a God. Can you please explain?

When you say that you believe or do not believe in something you often have a bit of an investment that goes with it. You are prejudicing yourself to some extent if evidence was found to the contrary. If I say that I lack a belief then I am less likely to reject reliable evidence for an object that I cannot be sure of. Saying that I lack a belief reinforces the fact that I have no clear evidence either way.

Now some versions of God can be refuted. For example one based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible. That does not mean that God does not exist. It does not necessarily even mean that the Christian God does not exist. The Bible may merely have many details of that God wrong.

 

[idea]

God revealed it to him. That is how any person may know things that are not otherwise, at a given time, knowable.

"Revelation" does not create knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

"Revelation" does not create knowledge.

From the the perspective of the Baha'i Faith progressive Revelation does Create knowledge in the spiritual evolution of humanity, The principles of the Baha'i Faith are indeed new knowledge not present in previous religions.

For example the Harmony of science and religion. Ancient religious scriptures remain frequently in conflict with science, and today many followers of Christianity and Islam reject science.

In the scripture of the Baha'i Faith even the interpretation of Baha'i scripture must change to adapt to the changing and evolving knowledge of science concerning the nature of out physical existence.

Other principles an laws revealed are the elimination of all kinds of slavery, and the social and legal equality of men and women.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you say that you believe or do not believe in something you often have a bit of an investment that goes with it. You are prejudicing yourself to some extent if evidence was found to the contrary.

You will have to, as they say, produce or provide the evidence. Also, before I forget, I want to apologize because one of your earlier statements I DID agree with. Which is unusual.

If I say that I lack a belief then I am less likely to reject reliable evidence for an object that I cannot be sure of. Saying that I lack a belief reinforces the fact that I have no clear evidence either way.

Now some versions of God can be refuted. For example one based upon a literal interpretation of the Bible. That does not mean that God does not exist. It does not necessarily even mean that the Christian God does not exist. The Bible may merely have many details of that God wrong.

Hmm, and that is where we disagree. As an example we have the Pharisees and the Saducees. The Pharisees seemed to have continued, the Saducees to the best of my knowledge did not, but apparently both groups thought they were right. I'll leave it there for now. Does that mean because of differing opinions that God does not exist? I know this may be problematic, but if I thought a particular group, or way of thinking was right about God -- I'd join that. I won't go any further now. But thanks for your answer. Except to say at this point it shouldn't be an overnight conversion. It took me time, prayer, and lots of thought. Even though I am not perfect -- yet -- I keep in mind the wonderful promises of God as detailed in the Bible. I think I understand your stance better now, thanks again for explaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You will have to, as they say, produce or provide the evidence. Also, before I forget, I want to apologize because one of your earlier statements I DID agree with. Which is unusual.

Provide evidence for my beliefs? No, that is something that one has to generally trust a person for. It is when one makes claims that can be proven with evidence that one has to support it. For example you claim to be a Christian. I have never challenged that belief. Unless one goes to extremes to refute it we generally accept what people claim to believe.

Hmm, and that is where we disagree. As an example we have the Pharisees and the Saducees. The Pharisees seemed to have continued, the Saducees to the best of my knowledge did not, but apparently both groups thought they were right. I'll leave it there for now. Does that mean because of differing opinions that God does not exist? I know this may be problematic, but if I thought a particular group, or way of thinking was right about God -- I'd join that. I won't go any further now. But thanks for your answer. Except to say at this point it shouldn't be an overnight conversion. It took me time, prayer, and lots of thought. Even though I am not perfect -- yet -- I keep in mind the wonderful promises of God as detailed in the Bible. I think I understand your stance better now, thanks again for explaining.

Yes, religious groups all tend to think that they are right. What makes you think that it has been determined which one of your two groups was shown to be right? And no, differing opinions about God does not refute God, that is unless that God specifically predicted that there would be no dissent on its past orders.

 

[YoursTrue]

Provide evidence for my beliefs? No, that is something that one has to generally trust a person for. It is when one makes claims that can be proven with evidence that one has to support it. For example you claim to be a Christian. I have never challenged that belief. Unless one goes to extremes to refute it we generally accept what people claim to believe.

Yes, religious groups all tend to think that they are right. What makes you think that it has been determined which one of your two groups was shown to be right? And no, differing opinions about God does not refute God, that is unless that God specifically predicted that there would be no dissent on its past orders.

OK, there are many places to visit on this earth. Now let's say I like one place more than another. I personally don't like traveling a lot, others I know would love to spend their lives traveling and seeing different places. (I don't care to.) I'm going to stop there. Does that make sense to you about choosing beliefs and places to settle? I hope so. Because this is a public forum, yes, I agree with you if I understand you correctly about trust. P.S. That kind of means that when I find a place I like and can settle there, I appreciate that.

 

[metis]

Do pretzels have dna?

Oh, that's so twisted!!!

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, that's so twisted!!!

My third out loud laugh today. Thanks! good one.

 

[idea]

... the Harmony of science and religion. ... the interpretation of Baha'i scripture must change to adapt to the changing and evolving knowledge of science

I applaud the Baha'i faith for evolving beliefs. It sounds like this is is choosing to follow science above past "revelation", or just choosing to follow logical thoughts and data above spiritual guidance.

If the current Baha'i prophet reveals something that is contested by data/research/experimentation are members free to reject the "revelation" of current leaders in favor of guidance from secular sources?

The safe thing, remain humble and willing to change, new data, new experiment, our understanding evolves. Sometimes it is difficult to learn and grow if previous understanding is considered to be knowledge from God (rather than limited glimpse from current experience)...