Hello Rosum,Your creationist sources are lying to you. For example, Ambulocetus is one of many found links we have.
Have a look at Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils for a lot more found links.
rossum
Thanks. Thought so.For the most part, he was wrong. If he had limited it to a view that evolution disproves God, that evolution wouldn’t involve God in anyway, or basically any other thing that’s so blatantly obvious in contradicting Catholic belief it really shouldn’t have to be mentioned, he would’ve been okay, but evolution is compatible with Faith.
With all due respect you are being lied to by your creationist sources. Young Earth creationism has no scientific or evidential support so all they have is lies, and they lie massively.With all due respect, the “walking whale” Ambulocetus belongs in the evidentiary junk-pile along with all the other strained “proofs” of macroevolution shown on the Wikipedia page.
You have faith in one particular interpretation of God’s word; there are many others. You do not have faith in God’s World, that He created. You are in the same position as those who denied Galileo because they clung to one of many interpretations of the Word while ignoring the evidence of the World. You are trying to stand on one leg when you should be standing on two. God’s Word and God’s World must be in agreement when correctly interpreted. YEC-style creationism is not a correct interpretation, as is shown by God’s World.I could only wish we Christians could muster the firm religious faith in our God and His Word that evolutionists have in their belief system.
No…say it isn’t so.With all due respect you are being lied to by your creationist sources. Young Earth creationism has no scientific or evidential support so all they have is lies, and they lie massively.
Speciation is a red herring and has nothing to do with the mystical faith of macroevolution. Speciation like microevolution is real science and a key concept embraced by crazy YECers everywhere. (The radicals at Answers in Genesis, for instance, have a long list of articles on the truth of speciation).Macroevolution has been observed many times. The first scientific paper observing the evolution of a new species, which is the definition of macroevolution, was published in 1905 by deVries. For a more recent example see Lyko (2017).
YEC creationism was the belief of the Old Testament saints and the Church universally for almost 1800 years (including St. Augustine, who was a full-blooded YEC, but went too far in his YEC convictions by trying to squeeze the first seven days into one day). I agree completely with you on following the perfectly compatible testimony of God’s world and His Word. Real science speaks volumes regarding the incredible wisdom and power of the One Who reveals Himself intimately to us in Holy Writ and the Sacraments.You have faith in one particular interpretation of God’s word; there are many others. You do not have faith in God’s World, that He created. You are in the same position as those who denied Galileo because they clung to one of many interpretations of the Word while ignoring the evidence of the World. You are trying to stand on one leg when you should be standing on two. God’s Word and God’s World must be in agreement when correctly interpreted. YEC-style creationism is not a correct interpretation, as is shown by God’s World.
How’s your search going?Yes @ottri, I accept that you have a genuine understanding of the meaning of “theory” as a “proposition” or “supposition” and I’m very happy to agree with this.
My concern is with the unscientific attempt of people like Dawkins who claim that evolution (after abiogenesis) is the sole cause of life on earth
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
In science, speciation and macroevolution are synonyms. Microevolution happens with a species, like humans with blue eyes or brown eyes. Macroevolution is the formation of a new species or higher clade.Speciation is a red herring and has nothing to do with the mystical faith of macroevolution.
Defining terms always clarifies issues and is best done before disputation.In science, speciation and macroevolution are synonyms. Microevolution happens with a species, like humans with blue eyes or brown eyes. Macroevolution is the formation of a new species or higher clade.
Whatever definition of macroevolution you are using, it is not the one science uses.
C) A change in the DNA of an interbreeding population over time.So, I ask you to define "evolution’? Is it “A” or “B”? If the definition lies somewhere in between, please give us “C”.
A) “a process whereby organisms change with the passage of time so that descendants differ from their ancestors.”
B) “an ideological frame of mind which sees the entire universe in terms of matter-in-development and which consciously denies the existence of spiritual or supernatural reality; all phenomena–scientific, historical, economic, and social–are explainable in exclusively material terms.”
Tying it to one Victorian Englishman is handy for demonisation purposes. It is less easy, and less satisfying, to try to demonise the entire biology academy.Darwin’s theory? Why is it that when there is a discussion about evolution in these forums it is always about the version of the theory from over 150 years ago? Over time scientific theories “evolve” as new information is introduced and discovered
Maybe we can do that. What does evolution predict his DNA would look like? What does ID predict his DNA would look like? As compared to ours. If it is pristine will you concede?Please let us know his carbon date and DNA sequence. You have previously made claims about Adam’s DNA; show us the supporting evidence please.