Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea of distinct species is what confuses people. This view leads to:
  1. Dinosaurs
  2. ??? (something speculative and bordering on magic)
  3. Giraffes.
But the truth is that there is variation in any species-- all individuals deviate from the norm in some way: longer or shorter neck, longer or shorter eyelashes, bigger or smaller hooves, whatever. When any particular variation because advantageous, then the species starts to drift genetically over many generations.
 
How many bones we “should” have depends more on how easy or hard it is for bones to be preserved for a long time than it does on what kinds of bones they are.
 
What is speculative is the particular environmental pressures that led to observable changes in phenotype over time. Nobody was there for the tens or hundreds of millions of years that a species gradually gave way to a new one.

What is not speculative is that fossil species are different than modern species, and in a very particular way. What is not speculative is that similar species on Earth are related in very particular ways, differing very obviously due to environmental pressures.
 
Not convincing. The less the evidence, the greater the tendency to speculate.
 
edwest211 said:
It is highly speculative. Did it happen this way? Unknown. We should have a lot more bones over a million year period.
Click to expand...
It’s really sad that the world never got to know and love all these millions and millions of beautiful and wonderful mystery transitional animals and plants. Out competed and stepped on by their very own next modifications… evolution is cruel !
 
edwest211 said:
It is highly speculative. Did it happen this way? Unknown. We should have a lot more bones over a million year period.
Click to expand...
Hi, edwest? Good to know you’re still with us. Genesis clearly states that fruit-trees were create before any marine life. Do you agree with that?

It’s a simple enough question. Buffalo has been brave enough to say yes. Why can’t you?
 
No, (name removed by moderator), the answer is Yes.

You are correct, though, that the thread has become somewhat threadbare recently. Sadly - and you can track back to check - the creationists have been wholly unable to plead their case, scientifically or theologically. There are convinced assertions a-plenty, but they are all based, in that they were based at all, on individual interpretations of the bible, which are contradictory, incoherent, and unreasonable. It is very lucky that Christianity does not depend on such interpretations.
 
On the contrary, I encourage all evolution skeptics to redouble their efforts in this thread. It serves a purpose, keeping them amused and satisfied – and preoccupied – for the good of the forum.
 
Techno2000, this is useful information. Could you look up how many species of fungus there are? With pictures, please? If you could only do that, I might be persuaded to abandon Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
 
Last edited:
From Hugh_Farey: Now what do they believe about fruit-trees? Genesis clearly says that the earth was thick with them before the sun was created.
Click to expand...
“Richca said:
(continued from previous post)
Click to expand...
God had already created light in verse 3 and seperated the light from the darkness and the light He called Day and the darkness He called Night, so we don’t really have a problem with the creation of the fruit trees and vegetation on day 3 before God made the ‘lights’ on day 4…

I will continue with some various interpretations from the Fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church. I have to get going pretty soon so I may have to continue with this later.

Again, Happy Easter to all!!
Click to expand...
I’m going to keep this short presently. Much has been written concerning the interpretation of the creation of light in Gen. 1:3 and the work of day 4 when God made the sun, moon, and stars. Since we can’t ask the inspired sacred writer personally precisely what his intent is here, various interpretations have been given and, indeed, this is the simple answer to the question of the interpretation of day 1 and day 4. Namely, the text itself lends itself to various interpretations. Arguments can be put forward that (1) day 1 and day 4 are chronologically and historically ordered, or (2) day 1 and day 4 are not historically ordered but the inspired writer had theological reasons for for this sequence, or (3) a combination of 1 and 2 involving also literary or what some call framework structure of the narrative.

Whatever interpretation one might favor, we should not lose site of the inspired sacred writer’s theological explanation of the phenomena we observe in the world, namely, that the whole of creation or the universe and its arrangement and variety of creatures was created by God and is the work of God.

Some Fathers of the Church considered that Moses placed the making of the ‘lights’ on day 4 instead of day 1 or from the beginning because the people of those times were prone to worship the sun, moon, and stars as gods and to view these ‘divine’ objects especially the sun as the source and cause of life here on earth; or the sun as the ‘Father’ of light. In this connection, St Basil remarks that God created light before the sun to impress upon us and especially the ancient Israelites that He is the author and Father of light, not the sun. So, according to some interpreters, Moses may have had a theological reason/s for the sequence of day 1 and day 4. At the same time, one cannot rule out an actual chronological or historical order because of the ‘theological reasons’ as other fathers or doctors of the Church explain that the ‘theological reasons’ which God obviously foreknew is the very reason why He created the light before the sun which, for example, is St Basil’s opinion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top