you do understand what a species means in science dont you?
yes I do because the classification has a clear basis
From your link.
=> The similarity of species is judged based on comparison of physical attributes, especially their DNA sequences, where available
That is the basis for science determination for species and hence horse, donkey and mule are different species because there DNA is different.
All I am asking is what basis do you define species if not above so we can get some common ground to discuss things.
I believe that what you are in the process of doing in this
discussion is that you are trying to establish that the Bible
contradicts itself , and you think that if you can establish
that the Bible contradicts itself that will prove to you
that evolution is right.
Incorrect on both counts and especially at a science level.
First if the bible contradicts itself what does it matter? Bill from above explained how there is a deliberate contradiction between old testament and new testament and you are sort of saying you don't accept leviticus and it is not up to me to say what is and isn't correct and I don't.
As I have stated in another post for a start there is more than just genesis versus evolution in this argument. There are other religions such as buddism which has re-incarnation, church of latter day saints where we have pre-existant beings as what humans are now and the nutty factor such as aliens mating with apes creating us.
So even if I could somehow show that genesis was wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt that would not prove evolution. The only proof of evolution possible under science is putting it continually to the test about what it predicts and see if it does it. It will take only one failure of a properly organised test for evolution to fall.
As you have ceased trolling and actually started discussing in a fair and reasonable manner I am being up front and fair and reasonable and I do not intend to make fun of or create any attacks on your religion or beliefs.
so instead of science leaning on what science has as any
so called evidence of evolution , science will now begin
to establish evolution's validity through the leaning on of
the words in the Bible.
That is not possible is science and is the basis of good science you can not gain validity in science unless an idea is being rigorously tested.
The reason Intelligent Design can not be taught as science is because it does not allow us to put the central principle under test ... that there is no god. As such the outcome is hence preordained and thus not science.
If science treated evolution as preordained and trying to establish some sort of validity through leaning on the bible it would be no better than Intelligent Design. Your speaker in your video identified some statements from scientists that I would indeed classify as unscientific and they made me cringe as a scientist. I was at least happy that most of the quotes were old 1966, 1960 the newest I remember seeing was 1999.
Thus I can guarantee you that is not an argument I or any true scientist could make that evolution is somehow valid because of any biblical leaning or any other sort of reliance. Science validity can only be determined by testing and putting theories to the test with each new bit of information and data.
I actually liked for example one of the jewish Rabbi's answers which I think is quite a reasonable given his belief
Evolution that we can observe and measure with our senses is certainly part of the science curriculum that ought to be encouraged. But to extrapolate backwards in time on the basis of circumstantial evidence to so absurd an extent as to supplant the account of the creation of life given by the Torah with that of unverifiable human speculation is not a question of science but rather a revision of history.[14]
Paul the bottom line is if I ever used the bible in the way you fear please feel free to tell me I am being an unscientific hypocrite as it would be accurate.
However it "appears" your issues with evolution and science have something to do with something literal you believe is in the bible because that is what you said not something I created. If you were a later day saint and told me your leader Joseph Smith decoded some gold plates and it said science was bad, or if you were a Catholic and told me the pope made a decree that science was bad then I would at least understand the basis for the opposition and how your religious authority works.
So all I am trying to work out is who in your religion declared war on science and/or evolution and why. If you simply follow church doctrine then it is pointless me trying to discuss it with you because you have no authority to speak for the religion. Up todate you have sort of answered that it is you and what it says in the bible but I am getting a feeling that may not be true and you may not be a classic fundementalist bible lay preacher/believer.
Out of curiousity I just looked up Rev K's religion to see what it says. It appears to have a synod which makes the decisions but it appears they are not binding on individual ministries saying
While General Synod provides the most visible voice of the "stance of the denomination" on any particular issue, the covenantal polity of the denomination means that General Synod speaks to local churches, associations, and conferences, but not for them
Rev K's churches synod view on evolution appears to be
We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology."
Although if I read all that correct Rev K would have some latitude to decide for himself.
