Evidence for God from Science

The term "species" is a human construct to help in the understanding the relationships between organisms, and so obviously has blurred edges. There are many species which are wholly reproductively distinct, but the nature of evolution is such that we wouldn't expect that invariably to be t...

This isn't proof for evolution. Here is a very old post... Yes, I suppose it must be. It starts well, but soon becomes no more than a litany of creationist 'facts' which are, of course, wholly disputed by evolutionists. Modern genetics has proven Darwin totally wrong. Obviously not. Yet evolutionis...

Study appears legitimate, of foxes domesticated by humans eventually changing in their appearance to have more "domestic dog"-like features Yes. I note a clear distinction between two experiments here. The wolves on the video were not bred especially. The cubs were taken from the wild, an...

Fascinating living in the UK, and waking up to find all these interesting posts accumulating overnight! Dogs. Yes, it took dozens of generations to make them look and behave like dogs rather than wolves, so I'm not very surprised that you can't produce a domestic dog from a wolf just by treating it ...

Are you talking to me? I'm not sure I understand the question. And admit my ignorance so-far-as Miacids are concerned. Not really; it's just that whatever the subject, even the slightest mention of the a-- word is enough to divert it towards Noah's Fludde. Again. and the second part was not aimed a...

I wish I hadn't included the words in parentheses! I still want to know what the creation of the "dog kind" might actually have looked like, if not via the visually indistinguishable Progressive Creation or Theistic Evolution.

I also think it is wrong to look at species based upon similarities and differences in their physical characteristics. Genetics has proved such is often wrong, yet such it is still often used.' Absolutely right. However, I wanted to overleap the rather minor squabbles we occasionally see about whet...

I also believe this bit of the following article... "Actually the assignment of a certain number of millions of years to a rock formation does not derive from the strata itself. The standard Geological Column became the reference point, even though it does not appear anywhere on earth except i...

Hugh, the "intervention" began with how and when God created various things. The interconnectedness of species and their interdependencies, their created environments, and especially of their timings of the arrival and interdependencies of all dictate how things transpired. This is true w...

I think Kurieou's post is a very good summary. But permit me a small flight of fancy, and then a question. Supposing he and I had looked down upon a group of miacids, living in the trees in North America about 42 million years ago. Resembling cats, but with rather rat-like faces, they preyed on tree...

Thanks, DBowling. If this is at all persuasive to anybody, then there is not much more to say. To think that the entire verse, "וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, לְמִינֵהוּ, וְעֵץ עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי אֲשֶׁר זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ, לְמִינֵהוּ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב" can refer to nothi...

Goodness me. If the diagram above reflects Hugh Ross's attempt at concordance between Genesis and Geology then it's a pretty desperate straw-grasp. On Day 3, when Genesis gives us fruit-trees, all RTB can manage is "Microscopic eukaryotes", and on Day 4, on neither of the two days specifie...

I disagree that there is a profound difference between the sequence of events demonstrated in the fossil record and the sequence of events laid out in Genesis 1. (Navigating Genesis - Hugh Ross) I hope you'll forgive me for not buying a book simply to inquire into your beliefs. As I understand it, ...

If I understand it correctly, Day-Age Creationism still agrees with the order in which things were created in the bible, placing fruit-trees on the earth 'ages' before there were fish in the sea. Is that right? While Progressive Creationism allows for organisms to appear on earth in the order illust...

All very true, and moving the discussion. The simple/complex thing, like the 99% thing, is the sort of generalisation that evolutionists do not now, nor ever have, played along with unless the terms are well defined. An insect is more complex than an amoeba. The fact that is has a shorter length of ...