Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Freddy]

02:48 - “Why do you believe the resurrection of Jesus?” etc etc

Why should you listen to Meyer? His science is so different to yours that his age of the earth is different to yours by a factor of hundreds of thousands.

‘I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That’s both my personal and my professional opinion. I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist…’ Kansas, 2005.

He thinks your views on such matters are nonsensical. You should pay attention to what he says. But then again, you never fail to link to articles, papers and people who hold views which are diametrically opposed to yours.

 

[o_mlly]

Then the birth of Jesus is a “historical speculation”. …

Then it puts the birth of Jesus in the same scientific category as evolution. Do you accept that Jesus was born? Then, given the same indirect evidence, you should accept the evolution of species.

It does not logically follow from belief that beings that lived were generated from like beings, that other living beings were generated from substantially different beings. Of course, you may believe so as a matter of faith, not science.

 

[rossum]

It does not logically follow from belief that beings that lived were generated from like beings, that other living beings were generated from substantially different beings.

You are misunderstanding evolution. At every step new species evolved from substantially similar species. Each step was a small one, but a lot of small steps over a long time can take you a long way: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.”

Whatever you are arguing against, you are not arguing against evolution.

Of course, you may believe so as a matter of faith, not science.

Again, you are telling us you think that faith is inferior to science. A strange position for you to take, as I have pointed out before.

 

[o_mlly]

At every step new species evolved from substantially similar species. Each step was a small one, but a lot of small steps over a long time can take you a long way: “A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.”

Zeno’s runner never reaches his goal even with an infinite number of small steps because there is just too far to run.

Again, you are telling us you think that faith is inferior to science. A strange position for you to take, as I have pointed out before.

You misunderstand the difference in science and faith knowledge. The former I know only provisionally and probabilistically. The latter I know with absolute certainty. Which one do you consider superior?

 

[rossum]

Zeno’s runner never reaches his goal even with an infinite number of small steps because there is just too far to run.

And you have a proof that each step is half the size of the previous step?

You misunderstand the difference in science and faith knowledge. The former I know only provisionally and probabilistically. The latter I know with absolute certainty. Which one do you consider superior?

Since my absolute knowledge is that the Bible contains many errors and that the Tripitaka corrects those errors, then I know that your personal faith-based absolute certainty is inferior to mine. Hence, your certainty is inferior to science. Science is provisional; your faith based certainty is incorrect.

 

[o_mlly]

And you have a proof that each step is half the size of the previous step?

Unlike speciation via evolution, Zeno’s proof is definitional.

Since my absolute knowledge is that the Bible contains many errors and that the Tripitaka corrects those errors, then I know that your personal faith-based absolute certainty is inferior to mine. Hence, your certainty is inferior to science. Science is provisional; your faith based certainty is incorrect.

Leaving the logical errors in the above comment aside, the Catholic faith expressed in its dogma and doctrines is informed by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Cite the article of faith that your science proves to be in error.

 

[rossum]

Cite the article of faith that your science proves to be in error.

I am Buddhist. The Tripitaka is Buddhist scripture. It is Buddhist scripture which shows that the Bible contains errors.

 

[o_mlly]

I am Buddhist. The Tripitaka is Buddhist scripture. It is Buddhist scripture which shows that the Bible contains errors.

Your non-answer indicates that you have nothing from science that disproves an article of Catholic faith.

What errors in Catholic dogma and doctrine does the Tripitaka prove to be in error? Answer: none.

So neither science nor Buddhism proves any Catholic article of faith to be in error.

Hence, as I claimed, the certainty of my faith is superior to your science.

 

[rossum]

Your non-answer indicates that you have nothing from science that disproves an article of Catholic faith.

I did not say I did. I said that Buddhist scripture disproved parts of the Bible and I was correct in that.

If you want to see where science disagrees with the Bible, then look for passages that are now considered poetic which were once considered literal: an unmoving earth mounted on pillars. A mountain from which all the kingdoms of the earth could be seen. A 6,000 year old earth.

All of those were once considered literal truth, but the Catholic Church has, wisely, changed its interpretation from literal to non-literal in the light of scientific discoveries since the Bible was written.

What errors in Catholic dogma and doctrine does the Tripitaka prove to be in error? Answer: none.

Answer: you have not read the Tripitaka. Catholicism claims that there is only one God. The Tripitaka shows that claim is wrong:

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

 

[o_mlly]

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

It appears Buddhism has no God. Buddhism has not found our God (yet). As you have no God but many gods, Buddhism does not show Catholicism’s belief in one God to be in error.

(Another thread in another forum.)

 

[Buzzard3]

Nope. I’m looking for an empirical observation, not an historical speculation, of a speciation event

With that sort of attitude, your chances of being accepted into the cult of Darwinism are very slim.

 

[Buzzard3]

It appears Buddhism has no God.

Buddhism’s God is “the universe” - it controls everything - like “karma”- deciding the eternal fate of everyone, yet the universe has no intelligence! Go figure.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism’s God is “the universe” - it controls everything - like “karma”- deciding the eternal fate of everyone, yet the universe has no intelligence! Go figure.

You are mistaken. Buddhism has many gods, but they are not important.

No, karma is not intelligent. Gravity directs the path of every large body in the universe and gravity is not intelligent. Similarly for karma: actions have consequences or alternatively action and reaction.

 

[buffalo]

You are mistaken. Buddhism has many gods, but they are not important.

Which one is the boss god?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

How is this relevant to what we’ve been discussing?

 

[Buzzard3]

Creationism has no scientific evidence, it only has belief. In order to substitute for their lack of evidence, creationists have been picking out parts of scientific writings to try to give the appearance that they have evidence. The Patterson letter is a classic of the genre. See Patterson Misquoted for a longer treatment.

I’m familiar with the controversy detailed in the article you refer to, but there is no mention of my Patterson quote in the article you refer to … which was,
“It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.”
Dr. Colin Patterson, from a letter to Luther Sunderland, 1979.

Darwinism is saturated with the pseudo-scientific “stories” Patterson refers to, and is seriously overrated as a scientific explanation for the history of life on earth - as an atheist myth it works just fine … but as science, forget it. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

 

[Buzzard3]

The second explanation is specific to the Cambrian: the evolution of hard shells. A soft squishy body will not fossilise well since if it decays or is eaten by a predator there is nothing left to fossilise. With a hard shell, then there will be at least the shell left after decay or predation. Hard shells fossilise well.

Sorry, but that is a weak, out-of-date argument. In his article, “The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis” (evolutionnews org; July 6, 2020), Gunter Bechly states that “Deposits bearing exceptionally preserved soft-bodies fossils are unusually common in the Cambrian strata: more than 40 are known”. He goes on to say that not one of those deposits reveals the transitional fossils between Ediacaran and Cambrian biota that Darwinian theory predicts and requires.
Bechly sums up the situation concisely with these comments, “To deny that this is a major problem for Darwinian evolution is absurd … the Cambrian explosion has turned out to be even more abrupt than was previously thought (Bechly 2018a). If a problem does not dissolve with increasing knowledge but only gets worse over time, it is a good indicator that this problem is very real. Darwinists have to face the fact that a core prediction of their theory miserably failed an important empirical test. ”

(Gunter Bechly is a world-renown paleontologist who has discovered more than 160 new species and has ten biological groups named in his honour.)

 

[rossum]

Darwinism is …

… a nineteenth century scientific theory which was replaced in the early twentieth century by the Modern synthesis, which incorporated Mendelian genetics into the theory. Since then further modifications have been made.

You are aiming your criticism at the wrong target. For example, what is your specific criticism of Kimura’s Neutral Theory, which has been a part of evolutionary theory since the 1950s?

I would also point out that much of Genesis and other parts of the Bible are unscientific stories. They may be good theology, but they are not good science.

Sorry, but that is a weak, out-of-date argument.

You are wrong here. A news article is not a peer reviewed article. All it provides is a personal opinion, not science. Especially not a news article from a site with a known bias. The Cambrian explosion lasted for millions of years; if you disagree then you need to provide a peer reviewed article, not a personal opinion.

Would you accept Richard Dawkins’ personal opinion? Then why do you expect me to accept Dr. Bechly’s opinion?

 

[Buzzard3]

Buzzard3:

Darwinism is …

… a nineteenth century scientific theory which was replaced in the early twentieth century by the Modern synthesis, which incorporated Mendelian genetics into the theory. Since then further modifications have been made.

Darwinism is a failed scientific attempt to explain the origins of species, a pseudo-scientific fable that says all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via a process of mutations and natural selection.

Athesits like you are forced to accept Darwinism because you really have no other choice.

I would also point out that much of Genesis and other parts of the Bible are unscientific stories. They may be good theology, but they are not good science.

I’ve told you this before - I don’t consider Genesis to be a scientific description of history.

 

[Buzzard3]

You are wrong here. A news article is not a peer reviewed article. All it provides is a personal opinion, not science. Especially not a news article from a site with a known bias. The Cambrian explosion lasted for millions of years; if you disagree then you need to provide a peer reviewed article, not a personal opinion.

The Bechly article I referred to presents a scientific critique of Darwinian theory.

Please tell me which part of it you consider to be unscientific? Which part represents a “known bias”? Be specific. Don’t be shy.