B
buffalo
Guest
The actual history is Einstein did not like the evidence and concocted special relativity and the cosmological constant to deal with it. We have spent oodles of dollars trying to prove it. But…
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
correction = my middle yec position. Remember, the dino bone testing is showing around 30K.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Over and over you guys claim a better explanation is needed. We have one - design.
F
Freddy
Guest
The mid position would be somewhere around Dallas. You’re still standing at first base, mate. You’re like someone complaining that they shouldn’t be described as a flat earther because hey, it’s not completely flat!Freddy:
correction = my middle yec position.
B
buffalo
Guest
I will accept a not so old earther. But I liked @rossum middle earther because it was funny. Lighten up. But run up the posts count so you do not have to deal with your dogma going down the drain.
Last edited:
I
ImQuiet
Guest
I’m Catholic and definitely believe in evolution.
This thread devolved into YECs getting mad at people calling them out for lack of evidence and I must say it’s rather glorious.
H
Hume
Guest
Darwin had his detractors too. And there is a vertiable ocean of glory to be had in overthrowing evolution.
As catty as it sounds, science works because every guy and gal that does it dreams of that Nobel. They dream of the big break where they discover some amazing new concept or overthrow some long-standing but fundamentally wrong concept.
Evolution only survives because it’s so good at out-competing alternative theories (which is kinda poetic, in a way).
Someone who thought they were right, had the evidence to prove it and was hungry for the respect of their peers.
The inability of these critters to breed is evidence of speciation. They both have similar geno- and phenotypes relative to the rest of life on earth yet cannot successfully mate.
That’s what “macroevolution” looks like.
Animals that are near speciation but not quite there are lions/tigers, horses/donkeys. They produce offspring on occasion, but the offspring themselves have substantial genetic issue - namely they can’t reproduce.
…
Back to cats and dogs, this is a Miacis. This is a critter that lived 40-50 million years ago and is the common ancestor of dogs and cats.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Every dog and cat living has this little critter in their family tree. Here’s what it probably looked like fleshed out;
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Cute little guy, huh?
B
buffalo
Guest
I believe in evolution too, microevolution that is. I am Catholic. There are many theistic evos that have not kept current with the science. Design is a much better explanation. Why do you object to design? God could not design it?
B
buffalo
Guest
This would be the feline/cat archetype?
H
Hume
Guest
No, the common ancestor of dogs and cats.Hume:
This would be the feline/cat archetype?
And what kills the archtype hypothesis is that it, too, has ancestors that were different.
B
buffalo
Guest
You are certain it lived back then? How do you know?
B
buffalo
Guest
Because of HGT?
I
ImQuiet
Guest
Where did I say that I rejected the idea that God designed anything?
I’m just watching the fireworks here at this point.
B
buffalo
Guest
To be clear - did God design the universe?
I
ImQuiet
Guest
I certainly think so.
I think the how is explained very well by our current understanding of science.
I think the how is explained very well by our current understanding of science.
B
buffalo
Guest
Indeed the how is what we are debating. The fundamental question is how he put biological life into action.
Consider - AUGUSTINE AND EVOLUTION - A STUDY IN THE SAINT’S DE GENESI AD LITTERAM AND DE TRINITATE BY HENRY WOODS, S. J.
…Such prime matter, nevertheless, can exist only under some form. “We must not think of God as first creating matter,” the Saint admonishes, “and after an interval of time giving form to what He had created without form; but as creating it simultaneously with the world. As spoken words are produced by the speaker, not by giving form afterwards to a voice previously without form, but by uttering his voice fully formed, so we must understand that God did indeed create the world from unformed matter, yet concreated this matter simultaneously with the world. Still not uselessly do we tell, first that from which something is made, and afterwards what is made from it; because, though both can be made simultaneously, they can not be narrated simultaneously.”23 This we find again in the treatise we are especially discussing. “When we say matter and form, we understand both simultaneously, though we cannot pronounce them simultaneously. As in the brief space of speaking we pronounce one before the other, so in the longer time of narration we discuss one before the other. Still God created both simultaneously, while we in our speech take up first in time what is first in origin only.”24
Prime matter can be called not only what it actually was under some elementary form, but also what it was to become by future formation. This most important principle St. Augustine lays down in explaining against the Manicheans the text: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” He says: “Unformed matter is here called heaven and earth, not because it was this, but because it was able to become this; for heaven, it is written, was made afterwards. For if, considering a seed, we say that roots and wood and branches and fruit and leaves are there, not because they are there now, but because they are to be from it, in the same way it is said, ‘In the beginning God made heaven and earth,’ as if he made the seed of heaven and earth, when the matter of heaven and earth was still confused. But, because heaven and earth were certainly to be from it, matter itself is already called heaven and earth. Our Lord Himself uses this manner of speech when He says: ‘I will not now call you servants, because the servant knows not what his master does. But I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard from the Father, I have made known to you.’25 Not that he had actually done so as yet, but because the manifestation was certainly to take place.”26
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
and…
27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.
27 In the beginning, therefore, God created prime matter with its potency positively determined to all things that were to be, so that these things may be said literally, not figuratively, to have been created simultaneously with it.
H
Hume
Guest
Cool. So explain me.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I’m a Rhinorex (don’t mind the prehistoric gator trying to eat me). I lived 75 million years ago. How did I appear and where did I go?
Last edited:
I
ImQuiet
Guest
That’s all philosophical reasoning. There’s nothing empirical about this, while we’re drowning in empirical evidence for evolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Actually not, and why I am trying to bring people up to speed. There is no observable, repeatable, and predictable evidence for universal common ancestry. There is no empirical evidence showing simplest cell to man. Neo-darwinism is a theory.
- Status