Evolution and Creationism

  • Thread starter Thread starter DictatorCzar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hume said:
Not long after, these guys are gone, but there are more types of rats with differing traits.

Not long after, these are gone, but there are rats that have even more exaggerated expressions of the old traits and some new traits have shown up.

Repeat a few more times and you wind up with the mammals we have today.
Click to expand...
Oh my. Talking about a faith statement…
 
The evolution of life is evidenced by genetic evidence.

All life on earth contains RNA. This is true, most likely, because it was the first genetic language evolved by life and we all inherited it.
 
Michaelangelo said:
Scientific laws are only descriptive , not prescriptive . …
Click to expand...
The descriptive content of a science law rests in its explanatory power. The utility of a science hypothesis directly depends on its predictive ability. One test of the validity of a scientific hypothesis is measured by its predictive value.

Science depends on a structural reality that allows for the possibility of control whenever phenomena are predictable, regular, and subject to rules and laws. The assumption of the order of nature is fundamental to the concept of power over nature, and both are integral parts of the modern scientific worldview.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Light must be emitted by a light source.
Click to expand...
What about the very first light?
Click to expand...
The big bang, sure.

Things don’t typically show up at night because they’ve been emitting light from when they were first created. An object a billion light years away has had a billion years to get it’s light to us, so we see it.

The only stuff we cant see is the physically obscured and that which is moving away from us at a relative speed greater than light.
 
Hume said:
The big bang, sure.

Things don’t typically show up at night because they’ve been emitting light from when they were first created. An object a billion light years away has had a billion years to get it’s light to us, so we see it.

The only stuff we cant see is the physically obscured and that which is moving away from us at a relative speed greater than light.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely sure that light speed does not vary? Do you have empirical evidence that this speed is the same in all parts of the universe?
 
Hume said:
The cold, hard maul of “Reality” is what beats belief apart from fact.
Click to expand...
Quite true. Do you have any reality to share? It appears not.

I see quite a few posts from you on this thread offering your gratuitous beliefs but only one citation (about boat joints ?). What is gratuitously given may just as gratuitously be dismissed.
 
o_mlly said:
Nice try, but no dice. Does evolution hold that one species causes another, in particular that a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans evolved into the body of the first human being?
Click to expand...
You do not get to make up your own definitions. Evolution is defined as a change in the overall DNA of a population over time. That definition includes microevolution, which is a change in DNA over time and macroevolution, which is also a change in DNA over time, albeit often a longer time and a larger change.

Given that definition then humans are evolving here and now. For example the proportion of people with genetic resistance to COVID-19 is currently increasing.

The common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees evolved into a number of different species: chimps, bonobos, australopithecines, habilines, neanderthals, denisovans and ourselves among others. That is standard science, supported by a great deal of evidence, and it took a lot longer than the 10,000 years your reference allows. Currently only three of those descendant species are known to exist.
 
Hume said:
You sure?

I have a college biology text dated to last year that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
You really don’t want to go there regarding textbooks. Does your biology one include the embryo’s? I could go on with this one.
 
rossum said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Nice try, but no dice. Does evolution hold that one species causes another, in particular that a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans evolved into the body of the first human being?
Click to expand...
You do not get to make up your own definitions.
Click to expand...
Neither do you. Fr. Ripperger was quite clear. As a good philosopher, he defined his terms. I used his definition:
“By holding that one species causes another, in particular that a common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans evolved into the body of the first human being …”
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
You sure?

I have a college biology text dated to last year that says otherwise.
Click to expand...
You really don’t want to go there regarding textbooks. Does your biology one include the embryo’s? I could go on with this one.
Click to expand...
Gently, it’s much more reliable as a scientific text than a 2500 year old collection of Jewish religious texts.
 
Last edited:
Hume said:
Glad we agree.

As we can measure an enormous amount of things being older than 10000 years, YEC is very safely not a part of observable reality.
Click to expand...
If you rule out YEC how about a younger earth than 4.6B. How about 500,000 years?
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Hume:
Glad we agree.

As we can measure an enormous amount of things being older than 10000 years, YEC is very safely not a part of observable reality.
Click to expand...
If you rule out YEC how about a younger earth than 4.6B. How about 500,000 years?
Click to expand...
Has a lot of the things that we measure in the prehistoric world date in the millions and tens of millions and hundreds of millions and sometimes billions of years, a dating of half a million years would still be difficult for me to accept based on what I observe in reality.
 
Hume said:
Gently, it’s much more reliable as a scientific text than a 2500 year old collection of Jewish religious texts.
Click to expand...
Another faith statement. Many Christians are accused of blind faith. I have found over the years who has the blind faith.

Each day these Jewish texts are being validated by archaeology. Have you been following?
 
As an anthropological text, they have plenty of value. As a biology text, they’re worthless.
 
And it’s not particularly a faith statement. A year old biology text versus the pentateuch has the advantage of 2,500 years of additional information and research.
 
Hume said:
Glad we agree.

As we can measure an enormous amount of things being older than 10000 years, YEC is very safely not a part of observable reality.
Click to expand...
You didn’t read the article either, did you? Lurching again to the playbook, are we?
Since in some theories of evolution there are hundreds of thousands or millions of years required to gradually produce a particular set of human characteristics …
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top