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.
I feel like you deliberately refuse to understand what people are saying. This is a poor excuse for actual debating.

“Transitional” means “in-between.” If you have a picture from your teen years, it is a transitional picture, between your birth and now. But that teenager wasn’t really “adult-buffalo-waiting-to-happen.” It was its own person, living its own life.

Would you say “Why did teenage buffalo die off”? No. It’s a nonsensical question.

Let me ask you another question: at exactly what moment did baby buffalo become (I’m assuming here) a man? There isn’t one. Yet. . . I’m pretty sure you are no longer a baby, right?

The fact is that incrementally, baby buffalo became less and less baby-like, and more and more man-like.

Is this really a hard idea to grok?
 
Maybe. But we’re not talking about that. But thanks for the gratuitous preaching-- that’s much better than a cogent argument supporting your position.
 
benjamin1973 said:
I feel like you deliberately refuse to understand what people are saying. This is a poor excuse for actual debating.
Click to expand...
I was just pointing out what you claim transitional is. Then I asked - since you say there are no transitional fossils, the evo’s that claim there is - who is right? Please explain.
 
Which is why it is frustrating if one is to think of them as the same days of the week beyond a metaphorical analysis. All creation has been made anew in Christ, this is Scriptural. We believe not only in the things written down but passed on.
 
Techno2000 said:
The gist of what I’m saying is there would be billions and billions of transitional stages to be accounted for every plant and animal species on the planet. Billions of die out and billions DNA building…do the math now.
Click to expand...
Do you think that scientists and mathematicians haven’t done the math?

You’re sounding like the atheists who think they are the first to discover an apparent contradiction or “hard” passage in the Bible, that will surely bring down the edifice of Christianity if only they point it out. And we’re like, dude, we’ve been studying that stuff for two thousand years. There are whole books on it.

Do you think that, if the slam-dunk refutation to our entire current understanding of the development and interrelations of earthly life were as simple as “the math shows there wasn’t enough time,” that it would be left to you or me on a messageboard to discover this fatal flaw? That no one who literally devotes their lives to learning and discovering more about this stuff would have noticed already? Or do you think they have noticed and are maintaining a lie (while devoting years of their lives to improving overturning our understanding of the details of that thing they know is not true)?
 
Last edited:
Usagi said:
40.png
Techno2000:
The gist of what I’m saying is there would be billions and billions of transitional stages to be accounted for every plant and animal species on the planet. Billions of die out and billions DNA building…do the math now.
Click to expand...
Do you think that scientists and mathematicians haven’t done the math?

You’re sounding like the atheists who think they are the first to discover an apparent contradiction or “hard” passage in the Bible, that will surely bring down the edifice of Christianity if only they point it out. And we’re like, dude, we’ve been studying that stuff for two thousand years. There are whole books on it.

Do you think that, if the slam-dunk refutation to our entire current understanding of the development and interrelations of earthly life were as simple as “the math shows there wasn’t enough time,” that it would be left to you or me on a messageboard to discover this fatal flaw? That no one who literally devotes their lives to learning and discovering more about this stuff would have noticed already? Or do you think they have noticed and are maintaining a lie (while devoting years of their lives to improving overturning our understanding of the details of that thing they know is not true)?
Click to expand...
I freely admit that I’m an amateur at this stuff, I just want more details.And what I learned from these threads is that a lot of the details are just glossed over because Evolution has to be right.
 
If macroevolution were to occur in a animal today… what would it look like, and how would it start ?
 
buffalo said:
It still has not been challenged empirically, that is observable, repeatable and predictable.
Click to expand...
Literal Genesis, a 6,000 year old earth created in six 24-hour days has been falsified observably, repeatably and predictably by geologists, astronomers and cosmologists.

In order to support a YEC-style literal Genesis great swathes of science have to be ignored.

rossum
 
If polar bears were kept in a cold green Zoo, would after a many Generations their offspring turn green?
 
buffalo said:
Where in the Bible does it say 6,000 years?
Click to expand...
Add up the lives of the Biblical patriarchs. See Bishop Ussher’s calculations for the details.

Jewish Rabbis have come up with a similar figure, this is year 5778 after creation.

That is two independent sources for a 6,000 year figure.

rossum
 
Techno2000 said:
You’re sounding like the atheists who think they are the first to discover an apparent contradiction or “hard” passage in the Bible, that will surely bring down the edifice of Christianity if only they point it out. And we’re like, dude, we’ve been studying that stuff for two thousand years. There are whole books on it.
Click to expand...
You mean kinda like playing 6000 years card. 😉
 
benjamin1973 said:
Maybe. But we’re not talking about that. But thanks for the gratuitous preaching-- that’s much better than a cogent argument supporting your position.
Click to expand...
Just a reminder that this is a Catholic web site. Even those who see the unfolding of life as happening through random mutation and natural selection, as Catholics, would understand it as a creative process, in accordance with God’s will. And that is what my post addressed. Although freely given, my opinions are hardly gratuitous. While they were mainly directed towards others who are here to learn, the hope of course was that you might be among them. But evidently not; this approache has done no better than my more direct arguments have. The thing about a cogent argument is that it requires at least two people. And, there’s only so much I can do on my side.
 
Last edited:
Well, I expect it would start out looking like what you call microevolution.

Whether something you would consider macroevolution would occur within the lifetime of an observer, I don’t know.
 
Usagi said:
Whether something you would consider macroevolution would occur within the lifetime of an observer, I don’t know.
Click to expand...
How about hypothetically a million lifetimes what would an observer see ?
 
I never said there aren’t transitional fossils, in the sense that a fossil share some features of an earlier animal, and some features of a later one.

I said that there are no transitional animals. Every living things is what it is. It is only from our hindsight view through fossil records that animal A “turned into” animal B. There was never a moment, for example, when there weren’t giraffes, and then there were.
 
Techno2000 said:
The gist of what I’m saying is there would be billions and billions of transitional stages to be accounted for every plant and animal species on the planet. Billions of die out and billions DNA building…do the math now.
Click to expand...
No, you mustn’t just make wild guesses and then disbelieve yourself. There are about ten million species on the earth today - must of them beetles, as it happens - which derive from the original organism by a process of binary fission. On average, each could be arrived at via about 25 sequential separation speciation processes. If there was a similar number of times when one species simply evolved into a daughter species, and a similar number of times when a species became extinct without evolving into another, there could be about thirty million extinct species. It would be stretching the math to its limit to suggest that there might be one billion extinct species, let alone “billions and billions”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top