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.
Techno2000 said:
You are Joking right ?
Click to expand...
Not at all.
Techno2000 said:
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
Click to expand...
The berkeley.edu website is one of the best in telling people what evolution is all about. And sure, after two hundred years of trying in vain to discredit it, we’re pretty sure it’s stable. However, that doesn’t mean it’s taken for granted, and every new fossil has to be assumed not to fit until (not all that reluctantly, I’ll admit) it is agreed that it has found its place.
 
Techno2000 said:
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01
Click to expand...
The presumption is that the dating methods are correct and therefore that science has a reasonably good idea of the time frame over which some species disappeared and others appeared.

If the dating methods were shown to be off an order of magnitude, it would truncate the time frame but it would not change the progression. Let’s face it: this is an amount of time that is far beyond our experiential time frame. We don’t know what can or cannot happen within some time frame or other, only what seems to have been observed happening in some time frame or other. There are independently-agreeing observations and calculations that tie the progressions together, though.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
Techno2000:
If polar bears were kept in a cold green Zoo, would after a many Generations their offspring turn green?
Click to expand...
Do you mean offspring of the bears or offspring of the algae inside their hairs?
The greening of polar bears in zoos | Nature
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
I guess I should of said red zoo. 😊
 
Techno2000 said:
I suppose if you want to make it all sound plausible you can liken it to watching grass grow, but that doesn’t work at all for me… just answer my question directly… thanks.
Click to expand...
I did answer your question directly. You wanted to know what a million generations would actually look like and I told you. How much more direct could I get?
 
No, the phrase “empirical science requirements” is undefined jargon. Explain what you mean by that.
 
PetraG said:
I do not remember that ever being allowed in scientific debates.
Click to expand...
You are probably not old enough. 😀 A miracle is not what I am talking about. It is about observational evidence that shows a mind is a t work. This by today’s limtied science is excluded from the pursuit of knowledge.
 
buffalo said:
You are probably not old enough. 😀 A miracle is not what I am talking about. It is about observational evidence that shows a mind is a t work. This by today’s limtied science is excluded from the pursuit of knowledge.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “a mind is at work”? Either the watch runs on its own or it doesn’t. Which do you mean?
buffalo said:
Look it up. I already gave two different links…
Click to expand...
So…you can’t explain those three words in your own words?
 
Last edited:
I don’t buy it. Look at the facial features of the giant Egyptian statues, such as Ramesses II. You don’t look like your grandfather? Bogus. Just bogus thinking. Novel organs?
 
Last edited:
There is no ‘blind watchmaker.’ The scientific community regards the blind watchmaker as the truth.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
I suppose if you want to make it all sound plausible you can liken it to watching grass grow, but that doesn’t work at all for me… just answer my question directly… thanks.
Click to expand...
I did answer your question directly. You wanted to know what a million generations would actually look like and I told you. How much more direct could I get?
Click to expand...
If macroevolution were to occur in a animal today… what would it look like, and how would it start ?'
(Techno2000 Original Question )

No, I wanted to know what a animal in this day in age would look like if it started to morph into a new species. What would be the first signs of this?
 
Last edited:
edwest211 said:
There is no ‘blind watchmaker.’ The scientific community regards the blind watchmaker as the truth.
Click to expand...
Do you think the Almighty, knowing in His Wisdom that only humankind and the angels were to be invested with free will, and being able to see all things and all times and all consequences of every act in the most minute detail, familiar with every thing that can be known and capable of doing whatever He decides to do, is and has always been capable of achieving His Will and acting in infinitely loving care by giving His well-ordered commands to every thing that is, leaving no event that would ever occur outside His Providential plan?

The metaphor of a “blind watchmaker” is a metaphor that binds the Creator within the strictures of time. I am asking you if you believe God could not have created life by institution of His own natural laws or not?

Science deals with things that occur according to the laws of nature, things which can be understood and seen as predictable events flowing from the nature of the physical world. Those things that occur outside this order are beyond the testing and predicting of science. There are scientists who believe that the things outside this order are a null set, and there are scientists who believe that Providence may decide to give commands that supercede those predictable ways of physical action and reaction that humans can learn to understand.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Look it up. I already gave two different links…
Click to expand...
The word “requirement” does not appear in either of them. It appears that you are trying to claim that evolution is not a scientific study because it does not depend on empirical evidence. It does. Its only justification is empirical evidence. It appears that you do not know what empirical evidence is. It is “things you can see”. That’s all. It does not depend on experiment, repeatability or anything else. Just “things you can see”. Like fossils and DNA chromatograms.
 
That’s not a scientific question. It is about theology. Specifically, Divine Revelation. Mr. Dawkins wrote The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Your question cannot be answered as phrased.
 
Techno2000 said:
No, I wanted to know what a animal in this day in age would look like if it started to morph into a new species. What would be the first signs of this?
Click to expand...
There would be absolutely no visible signs at all. If you took a blood sample and compared its DNA to that of its parents, you might be able to discover a genetic difference. That would be it. The very beginnings of the possibility of a new species.
 
Dinosaurs were here and then they died. So what? Novel organs? Getting wings? No plausible explanations, just guesses. If I put a generic 3D body plan on my computer, I could create a lot of creatures with similar body plans but that’s where it ends. Similarity does not mean a common ancestor for all.
 
edwest211 said:
That’s not a scientific question. It is about theology. Specifically, Divine Revelation. Mr. Dawkins wrote The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker. Your question cannot be answered as phrased.
Click to expand...
Why can’t my question be answered? I asked what you think God can and cannot do. Not what God did or did not elect to do, but what you think the capacity of the Almighty is with regards to creating the natural world.

This is not a science forum, so I didn’t feel a need to restrict myself. When I talk about the blind watchmaker, I am talking about the view of theists who imagined that God could not invest Creation with the means to do His Will in a predictable way (predictable from God’s vantage point, that is, not necessarily ever predictable by us) without distancing Himself from it. They saw the question as “either God is constantly reaching in and doing miracles or else God just got the whole thing going and we’re on our own to get out of the way.”

Dawkins is an atheist setting up God as a straw man–that is, as a being that cannot exist if it will not show itself in ways that happen to suit Richard Dawkins, Atheist and Proud of It. He falsely contends that a universe that works the way an omnipotent being might have intended but without provable miraculous incursions is proof that no omnipotent being could possibly exist. He shows his hand by contending that it is logically impossible for a God to be simultaneously omniscient and omnipotent. His gross misrepresentation on other fronts (such as his misrepresentation of Aquinas, to name one) shows that his motivation was to present his opinions as if they are the truth.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
No, I wanted to know what a animal in this day in age would look like if it started to morph into a new species. What would be the first signs of this?
Click to expand...
There would be absolutely no visible signs at all. If you took a blood sample and compared its DNA to that of its parents, you might be able to discover a genetic difference. That would be it. The very beginnings of the possibility of a new species.
Click to expand...
Great we are finally getting somewhere. A little further down the road what would we be seeing next in this progression?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top