Evolution and Creationism

[lelinator]

Evolution from one kind of animal to another is not evidenced in the fossil record.

Again, could you give an example where evolutionists claim that one “kind” of animal evolved into another “kind” of animal.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

@lelinator

Again, could you give an example where evolutionists claim that one “ kind ” of animal evolved into another “ kind ” of animal.

I don’t need to, they admit their is no evidence and Darwinism has been refuted.
Please do not reply anymore. This is circuitous. So much practically blind ‘faith’ in speculative very unproven theory doesn’t make sense to me.
It just tickles the vacuum of denying the need for GOD.

 

[Freddy]

lelinator:

I’m with @Freddy on this one. You haven’t really told us what your alternative theory is.

@Freddy is in repose presently.

You ask for an alternate theory that explains the diversity of living creatures. I suppose you mean scientific theory, right? If so, give us your definition of “scientific”. That is, what makes a theory a “scientific” theory?

Repose? Well, I’m in a different time zone to most and I was actually ‘reposing’…but I’m up and about now.

I personally am not interested in whether your idea of what happened matches the generally accepted definition of science or not. I actually don’t care if it matches my definition of science. I just want to know what it is.

As lelinator confirms, you have never given any indication as to what your ideas are. And you seem determined not to.

You have no problem in pointing out what you think is wrong with most peoples understanding of the matter but it seems that, even when asked directly, you shy away from any comments, any specific position, that could be argued against.

For example, if you’re asked a simple question about time frames you don’t give a direct answer but ask what are the time frames associated with ‘macroevolution’ which you don’t believe occurs. Why are you asking for details of something you claim doesn’t exist…?

So…let’s play the game anyway. ‘Macroevolution’ has occured over billions of years. There you go. So again, what is your time frame for the process as you understand it. Whatever that might be. And some details are due I think. Post something positive for a change.

 

[Freddy]

It’s one thing to assail someone else’s theory, but it’s quite another thing to present your own. Kudos to @buffalo for at least making the attempt.

He does his best, there’s no doubt about that. He does a very bad job at it but at least he’s giving it a good shot.

The problem with most people’s arguments who hold to creationism is that they have to make their proposals somehow align to some degree with basic scientific facts (or just simply say it happened exactly as stated in Genesis). They obviously don’t so there is always some contradiction somewhere. And Buff is well know for posting links to articles which directy contradict his beliefs. And ending up, for example, giving his defiition for macroevelution which he then tries to deny confirms it.

I think o-mlly sees this, appreciates the corners that you end up painting yourself into and thinks: ‘No thanks. I’ll leave it to Buff to do all the hard yards and take the hits. I’ll just sit on the sidelines and bag the opposition’.

Maybe nobody will notice.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

@Freddy
Genesis is not a Book of science. The beginning Creation narrative asserts that GOD is above all of Creation and brought it into existence.
I do understand that over literalness does not nearly enough into account the various literary forms. The Creation narrative is more theological than scientific.
And science cannot refute it.
However, scientific empirical evidence such as fossil record drastically show no confirmation of Darwinism. Adaption within species does get reflected in the fossil record.
It takes more ‘blind faith’ to hold on to the theory of evolution than faith and reason in the miracles and anecdotal evidence of believers in Jesus The Christ.
Discussions like this are so often redundant with philosophical assertions,
that get nowhere.
It’s very sad, since an ethical life helps sincere justice - a striving for the common good as diligently as possible for everyone coming into this world the same way each of us did.
Peace.

 

[Freddy]

However, scientific empirical evidence such as fossil record drastically show no confirmation of Darwinism. Adaption within species does get reflected in the fossil record.

To use one of rossum’s apt comments: ‘Your sources are misinforming you’.

Could you tell us who they are?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

I cited an exhaustive commentary by Catholic Answers on this thread.
I will not be redundant.
Filling the basic human need for knowing and loving GOD with human intellectualism is nothing new.
Anyway, the following source, repeated below, is all I will give since circuitous limited human intellectualism discussions serve only a redundant purpose of self-knowledge satisfaction in speculations.
Peace of JESUS, which is Eternal, far beyond the limited human intellect sense of ‘lack of inner conflict’ senses of peace - or any other limited human senses of peace; be with you.

Evolution

Evolution - Theory that seeks to determine the historical succession of the various species of plants and of animals on our earth. Read more here.

www.catholic.com

 

[Freddy]

I cited an exhaustive commentary by Catholic Answers on this thread.
I will not be redundant.

I don’t think there was anything there that mentioned any scientific evidence which denies the process of evolution. You said ‘scientific empirical evidence such as fossil record drastically show no confirmation of Darwinism’.

I was just asking for your sources is all. Catholic Answers can’t be it.

 

[Freddy]

Anyway, the following source, repeated below, is all I will give…

Evolution | Catholic Answers

You do realise that that information is from the original Catholic Encyclopaedia? It’s (ahem) over a century old…

“Catholic Answers is pleased to provide this unabridged entry from the original Catholic Encyclopedia, published between 1907 and 1912. It is a valuable resource for subjects related to theology, philosophy, history, culture, and more. Like most works that are more than a century old, though, it may occasionally use anachronistic language or present outdated scientific information. Accordingly, in offering this resource Catholic Answers does not thereby endorse every assertion or phrase in it.”

Maybe you have something a little more up to date? Maybe from the 30’s perhaps?

 

[Pattylt]

I’m often confused as to what anti macro evolutionists expect from the fossil record. It’s a snapshot in time…not a movie. Each fossil found was successful and adapted to its environment at that point in time. We can see small and sometimes, if we’re lucky, large changes in form…often quite beyond adaptations.

We would have to have enormous amounts of fossils in order to see the macro evolution of one form to another…something that just doesn’t happen as fossilization is rare to begin with. We can see the early forms of species and what they are now, we just don’t have the running movie demanded by some…or they deny it’s an earlier form.

Here’s an example of whale fossils.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Well, I read the source, and it shows evolutionary speculative theory is unproven.
I’m sorry you can read the same thing and deny that in the content.
“The Darwinian principle of indefinite variability is contrary to facts, which in general show that, both in living nature and in geological strata, there exist types sharply discriminated from one another.”
I cannot respond to you anymore. This unproven theory only serves, after I gave my testimony as an imprudent use of my time.
May you let the Divine Favor offered by JESUS The Savior reach you. His Peace be with you.

 

[Freddy]

Well, I read the source, and it shows evolutionary theory is unproven.

I’m afraid you are yet again showing that very few people who attend these threads actually know anything about the subject. Maybe you actually didn’t get as far as the last paragraph in the linked article. Maybe you didn’t know that it was written just about the time that light bulbs were being made commercially available or that science considered that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe.

But if you knew anything whatsoever about science then you would know, without fail, that theories cannot be proven.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Freddy]

I’m often confused as to what anti macro evolutionists expect from the fossil record. It’s a snapshot in time…not a movie. Each fossil found was successful and adapted to its environment at that point in time. We can see small and sometimes, if we’re lucky, large changes in form…often quite beyond adaptations.

We would have to have enormous amounts of fossils in order to see the macro evolution of one form to another…something that just doesn’t happen as fossilization is rare to begin with. We can see the early forms of species and what they are now, we just don’t have the running movie demanded by some…or they deny it’s an earlier form.

More grist for the creationist mill I’m afraid, Patty. Some people find it easier to try to dismantle an argument rather than offer one of their own. But we live in hope…

 

[Pattylt]

Well, I would like to hear what they think is going on.
Are each of these fossils a separate animal that went extinct then God made the next one…went extinct, God made the next one…etc? Do they claim that these animals are not related at all? Are they each from some archetype and are the same animal, each micro adapted (yet completely different looking)?

 

[Freddy]

Well, I would like to hear what they think is going on.
Are each of these fossils a separate animal that went extinct then God made the next one…went extinct, God made the next one…etc? Do they claim that these animals are not related at all? Are they each from some archetype and are the same animal, each micro adapted (yet completely different looking)?

All this and so much more…never to be revealed.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Noose001]

I’m often confused as to what anti macro evolutionists expect from the fossil record. It’s a snapshot in time…not a movie. Each fossil found was successful and adapted to its environment at that point in time. We can see small and sometimes, if we’re lucky, large changes in form…often quite beyond adaptations.

Yes you see what you see in the fossil record, but is your conclusion correct? Those big and small changes that you see from the fossil record, could they be the cause of death for those organisms?

Evolution has to be discussed in the shallow waters only, if anyone goes deeper to the molecular and cellular levels, there are no beneficial changes but most are fatal.

Example; There can never be a shift from a fin to a limb to a wing. A fin is an organ whose functionality depends on the fitness of many other organ systems i.e, the circulatory, nervous, muscular, skeletal, endocrine, lymphatic systems. A change in one of these systems renders the fin function-less and thus the animal will most likely die rather than live- time lapse is of no benefit either.

A change from a fin to a limb therefore can never be accidental but requires collaboration between the systems i.e, simultaneous changes has to be happening in all the systems at the same time for us to achieve a limb from a fin and a wing from a limb. Once we start talking about collaboration, we are already talking about design and creationism.

There was no accidental changes from asexual to sexual reproduction or open to closed circulatory system, the organism has to die first.

 

[Freddy]

Pattylt:

I’m often confused as to what anti macro evolutionists expect from the fossil record. It’s a snapshot in time…not a movie. Each fossil found was successful and adapted to its environment at that point in time. We can see small and sometimes, if we’re lucky, large changes in form…often quite beyond adaptations.

Example; There can never be a shift from a fin to a limb to a wing.

Who needs fossils? We’ve already got fish that can walk and fly. Some even climb trees. And we have birds that swim (and some that can’t fly). And we have mammals that fly.

I mean, how many ways can you be wrong?

Epaulette shark - Wikipedia and…
Flying fish - Wikipedia and…
The Amphibious Bird | Bio-Aerial Locomotion and…
Are Bats Birds? | Wonderopolis

 

[Noose001]

Doesn’t matter, an attempt to change an organ is fatal because the original organ looses its functionality first. One link talks of a flying fish but that flying fish has always been a flying fish, it can not change into a bird not in a billion years as time lapse is of no importance here- the attempted change is fatal.

 

[Noose001]

I mean, how many ways can you be wrong?

Epaulette shark - Wikipedia and…
Flying fish - Wikipedia and…
The Amphibious Bird | Bio-Aerial Locomotion and…
Are Bats Birds? | Wonderopolis

Like i said, Evolution thrives in shallow waters only. You are talking about organisms with established and functioning organs but why don’t you explain how the change happens and see how impossible it is?

 

[Freddy]

Doesn’t matter, an attempt to change an organ is fatal because the original organ looses its functionality first.

Obviously it doesn’t. The flying fish uses it’s fin to swim and fly. The epaulette uses it’s fin to swim and walk. A bat uses it’s limbs to walk and fly.

As I said, we don’t need fossils to see this. We just look out of the window in some cases. There’ll be bats flying around my suburb at this time of the evening and they use their wings as limbs to ‘perch’ on trees. Seems they work perfectly well for both.