Quote me exactly. And it matters not to whether natural selection and random mutations can do the job you claim. They cannot and this is what is most important. The gig is up, the top evo’s know it and re scrambling to come up with something to continue with their evo fantasy. Catholic schools and teachers should be on top of this and it is sad they are not staying current. The evo dogma dies hard.
There’s no need. Your refusal to deny that figure is all that’s required. But you could put the record straight if it’s wrong. That’s up to you.Freddy:
Quote me exactly.
Yet:
So it’s an established fact yet hasn’t been proven. It has been observed but cannot be taught as science. Colour me confused.
Actually the Bible makes it explicit that the days of creation are not periods defined by a single revolution of the Earth, for the first day is listed before there was an Earth to revolve. Therefore a figurative sense is the only permissible reading.
Oh, ok…Freddy:
Quote me exactly.
The ‘many thousands’ will do just fine. We’re in the ball park I think. Which was a metaphor I think I used previously. That if the age of the earth was represented by the distance from Yankee Stadium to the California coast then your estimate of the age would be the distance from batter to first base.
The Church does not teach that creation took place in six 24 hour periods.
A gap characterized as “we don’t understand this bit” is one thing. A gap explained by “God does this part” does not sit well in a science class.
You are confused once again since you pulled the quote out of context and you well know it.
That’s an exact quote. Please don’t accuse me of bending the truth. That was all the post contained. You were qualifying something that rossum said. You wanted it worded your way. Which you did. It’s verbatim.Freddy:
You are confused once again since you pulled the quote out of context and you well know it.
Read again and you may understand it in my discussion with him. I said, ok, rossum, you want to call lineage splitting (microevolution) with subsequent loss of function (and information) macroevolution, go with it. We all know that is not what is meant by macro, however. In context this entire conversation was an admission that macro does not have the creative capabilities that evos claim. Hope this clears up your gotcha attempt.
You just wanted to emphasise that there was a loss. Which was the inability to mate with the parent species. Which you said didn’t require an assumption. You wanted to emphasise that. Hence:Freddy:
Read again and you may understand it in my discussion with him. I said, ok, rossum, you want to call lineage splitting (microevolution) with subsequent loss of function (and information) macroevolution, go with it.
You keep saying that, but it is still not true as has been demonstrated many times.
Which was never taught, at least not by anyone who understands the theory.
I do have some sympathy for people who have an objection to the “monkey to human transition”. It was exactly what I was taught in school and I had to do the work on my own to learn that it was completely not what was supposed to be taught. I do wish people would help a person who comes out with that explanation of evolution. It wasn’t until I was listening to a conversation and picked up hints that what I was taught didn’t mesh with the scientist that I knew to even look into it. Evolution vs Creationism was never a problem in my family so I never was interested enough to look into it after what I learned in class. After that, if I wanted to stick with the “monkeys to human” argument, well, that’s on me.Spanky1975:
Which was never taught, at least not by anyone who understands the theory.
2001 or 2002 (can’t quite remember which grade it was in, I can just picture the classroom and the teacher’s face).