E
EndTimes
Guest
Thank you… and don’t even try… Those who present presumptuous circular arguments in a rather juvenile attempt to indicate how knowledgeable they are wrt the Bio-Sciences… can not.
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
He existed, but He was not then the Creator, because as yet, no universe had been created.
It is untrue to say, “I am the creator of the universe” when no universe exists, and we know that God does not lie.
At most He can truthfully say, “I will create the universe in the future.” That makes Him a creator-to-be, not a creator.
And your observed evidence of a deity creating a new taxon is? Science has observed evidence; direct creation by any deity has no observed evidence.
If you want evidence for a new taxon, try researching the origin of mammals from their therapsid cynodont ancestors. The evidence is there should you care to look at it.
R
RaisedCatholic
Guest
One of the best resources I have read is a book titled, “The Battle for the Beginning.” It’s a MUST READ!
E
EndTimes
Guest
Show us - Don’t claim it - without giving us the necessary supportive and detailed “science”
The Cambrian Period has Darwinists Stumped. Packed with evidences of Phylum’s arriving de novo
DNA has Darwinists Stumped. Worse for them - is the actual Origin of DNA’s encoded Bio-INFO…
The Cell itself has Darwinists Stumped.
And like it or not, LIFE itself has Darwinists (yes Darwin quickly alluded to pond scum) Stumped.
The simplest form of Life is the most complex chemistry in the Universe - and is still being investigated.
You simply changed the subject w/o answering…
Man has never observed variation within Genomes BEYOND the level of Genus… Such is a necessary requirement to fulfill the demands of what Man labels as empirical science. All else is Story.
W
Wozza
Guest
Ah, so you do realise that there is more to evolution that skeletal comparisons. Now we have something we can discuss.rossum:
Show us - Don’t claim it - without giving us the necessary supportive and detailed “science”
The Cambrian Period has Darwinists Stumped. Packed with evidences of Phylum’s arriving de novo
If you don’t believe that the various phyla did not emerge via the process of evolution, what is your proposal for how it did happen? Is it your suggestion that God created everything prior to the Cambrian period and then decided that life was too simple at that stage so spent a few million years adding more complex organisms? And then allowed them to go extinct?
Can you explain why He didn’t get it right the first time? And why it took a few million years to get it right? And why nearly everything He created at that time was allowed to die out? Can you explain the purpose of the emerging phyla? Can you run us through why you think that new species were created in such a way and in such an order and in such a sequence as to match what the theory of evolution explains?
T
Techno2000
Guest
Species “appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus—full grown and raring to go.” Jeffrey Schwartz, 1999rossum:
Show us - Don’t claim it - without giving us the necessary supportive and detailed “science”
The Cambrian Period has Darwinists Stumped. Packed with evidences of Phylum’s arriving de novo
DNA has Darwinists Stumped. Worse for them - is the actual Origin of DNA’s encoded Bio-INFO…
The Cell itself has Darwinists Stumped.
And like it or not, LIFE itself has Darwinists (yes Darwin quickly alluded to pond scum) Stumped.
The simplest form of Life is the most complex chemistry in the Universe - and is still being investigated.
You simply changed the subject w/o answering…
Man has never observed variation within Genomes BEYOND the level of Genus… Such is a necessary requirement to fulfill the demands of what Man labels as empirical science. All else is Story.
https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/fossil-record/
R
rossum
Guest
There is a size limit on posts here. Your inability to do your own research is noted.
Creationist websites would like you to think that. However, those websites are wrong. Did any of them mention any Precambrian metazoan species, such as the [Ediacaran biota](List of Ediacaran genera - Wikipedia}? And you might want to inform whatever website you were reading that the plural of ‘phylum’ is ‘phyla’. That misspelling shows the level of that site’s aquaintance with science.
Known biological processes can increase information, such as insertion mutations. Natural selection ensured that the information in DNA closely matches the information in the environment.
Your creationist sources are wrong again. Start by kooling at lipid bilayers.
Be very careful here. Creationism has no explanation for the origin of life – just ask yourself, is your God alive and what is the explanation for His origin?
Very obviously false. The next simplest form of life has more complex chemistry than the least simplest, and there are a lot of more complex forms above that, You need to check your posts for obvious logical errors before posting.
Man has never observed any God creating a new clade either. Science has evidence; creationism does not. Or are you telling us that Forensic Scientists cannot solve a murder unless they have an eye-witness?
E
edwest211
Guest
Here on this forum, God and miracles will never go away. For the Catholic Church, certain conditions need to be met. Certain facts need to be included: “It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe.”
- Communion and Stewardship
W
Wozza
Guest
If that’s your argument then point to any post that does that.
Crickets. Tumbling tumble weed. Long silence.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Not very long, I fear.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes they do. De Novo - as it were.
E
Elf01
Guest
The angels may have been.
E
EndTimes
Guest
…
Exactly.
“before” infers a prior time of which said time did not exist UNTIL the Universe was Created
and therefore that comment likewise becomes a non-applicable argument - along with whatever else existed In Eternity - such as Heaven and Jesus as well.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Why do Darwinists and Atheists always introduce God into discussions of Bio-Sciences.
Please to up your game.
W
Wozza
Guest
Forgive me. I assumed that when you denied that evolution could have occured then you were suggesting that God created all creatures ‘de novo’. I didn’t realise that you had an alternative scientific explanation.Wozza:
Why do Darwinists and Atheists always introduce God into discussions of Bio-Sciences.
Please to up your game.
In your own time, could you explain what it is?
R
rossum
Guest
Then we cannot say that God existed “before” the creation of the universe. Alternatively, we can say that “There was no time when the universe did not exist.” And hence, the universe has existed for all time – which is one way of saying that the universe is eternal.
In the absence of time you have no way of telling if something is eternal or not, because you have no way to measure.
E
EndTimes
Guest
“evolution” is defined in various manners and includes as yet unproven theories (plural)…
Often - people say “evolution” when meaning “science” or “Classic Darwinism” or even “antiCreationism”
“evolution” wrt the Biota - also means ‘change’ - so yes, on that note, I’m not denying, Genomic Changes within e.g., Species occur.
de novo? Evidences of radically new body plans emerging from within eg, the fossil record of the Cambrian?
Books are written… Unresolved Arguments abound.
Interesting what Punctuated Equilibrium Evolutionist Steven Jay Gould Scientist - overt enemy of what he and others refer to as “creationism” had to say - of which I’ll present to you this brief for your perusal.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen J. Gould - “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History , vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
We’ve all seen that quote so often one is beginning to suspect it appears on a creationist website somewhere.
E
EndTimes
Guest
PickyPicky, We’ve all seen that quote so often one is beginning to suspect it appears on a creationist website somewhere.
Ah. Bringing in 'creationism" … as if that carries any ‘weight’ during discussions of BioScience.
It bothers you b/c it undermines gradualism?
I’m left w/the impression that that’s mere wishful thinking on your part?
And that you’re not very familiar with Gould // Punctuated Equilibrium.
There are papers and books By Gould; you know.
So… Suspect as you will - however - why not become more informed on what Gould had to say…
Ah. Bringing in 'creationism" … as if that carries any ‘weight’ during discussions of BioScience.
It bothers you b/c it undermines gradualism?
I’m left w/the impression that that’s mere wishful thinking on your part?
And that you’re not very familiar with Gould // Punctuated Equilibrium.
There are papers and books By Gould; you know.
So… Suspect as you will - however - why not become more informed on what Gould had to say…
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I am familiar with Gould and have several of his books. I’m not at all disturbed by arguments among evolutionary biologists as to the speed of evolution.
- Status