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

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Buzzard3 said:
There was not nearly enough time during the Cambrian explosion for even the necessary mutations to occur, let alone for natural selection to do its work.
Click to expand...
So, obviously you have done the calculations to support this statement. Please show us those calculations, together with your initial assumptions. There is a potential Nobel Prize for you if those calculations of yours are correct.
Buzzard3 said:
There is also the problem (for Darwinism) of scores of new animal phyla appearing suddenly with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.
Click to expand...
Darwinism died at the start of the 20th century when Mendel’s work was incorporated into the theory. Are you still claiming that 5 to 15 million years is “suddenly”? You will not find many people who agree with you on that.
Buzzard3 said:
The fact that evolution (aka the Modern Synthesis, Darwinism) is the “best scientific attempt to explain for the origin of species” doesn’t mean anything - it certainly doesn’t mean it’s the truth, or even that it’s a good theory … in fact, the “best scientific attempt to explain” something could be dead wrong.
Click to expand...
Newton’s theory was once the best explanation of gravity we had. It was partly, but not completely, correct. Einstein improved the theory, so now it is less incorrect than Newton’s was.

That is how science works; good theories are replaced by better theories. Darwin knew nothing of DNA. The data from DNA sequencing has been incorporated into the theory, improving it. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, but it is far from “dead wrong”.
Buzzard3 said:
As for all life on earth being the result of a process of “mutations, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection, endosymbiosis and other process”, that is a claim that cannot be tested, and is therefore not even part of science - pie in the sky.
Click to expand...
Fine. Show us an example of any deity creating a new species without using any of those processes. We have evidence of all those processes. The Amish are a good example of Founder Effect for example. Where is your evidence to support your claims?
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Of course He was, just not in a super hands-on way. He designed the universe’s laws to result in the intended outcome, just the same way one creates a track so that a marble ends at a certain destination. God is responsible, but only in as much as He designed the Universe to run without intervention until Adam, at which point God stepped back in.
Click to expand...
Did God know what Adam would look like?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
He designed the Universe to run without intervention until Adam, at which point God stepped back in.
Click to expand...
In order to ascribe to such an opinion, one must believe that God created the rock with the potential to be a “living rock”, a “growing rock”, a “reproducing rock”, a “sentient rock”, an “intelligent rock”. All the rock lacked in potency was rationality and free will.
318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to “create” in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence “out of nothing”) (cf DS 3624).
Click to expand...
Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher Teilhard de Chardin saw the evolution of matter, life, and humanity itself as significant parts of a single process of cosmic development, a “coherent history of the whole universe." Not only could such a grand conception as that not be demonstrated scientifically, it also has philosophical and theological problems as noted above in CCC#318.
 
o_mlly said:
In order to ascribe to such an opinion, one must believe that God created the rock with the potential to be a “living rock”, a “growing rock”, a “reproducing rock”, a “sentient rock”, an “intelligent rock”.
Click to expand...
God did not create any rocks except by knowing that they would be the result of the universe He made. Don’t see what this means at all.
 
Everything. The universe and its laws. The end result of those laws is mankind.
 
Yes. For everything that exists, God made the building blocks, then designed a series of patterns of behavior for those blocks to follow.
 
Last edited:
Based on my understanding of current scientific theory, some sort of energy field which expanded space then grew weak and collapsed into matter and energy at the big bang.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Based on my understanding of current scientific theory, some sort of energy field which expanded space then grew weak and collapsed into matter and energy at the big bang.
Click to expand...
Matter cannot exist without space So, the claim is that God is only the first cause of 3 things, 1) time, 2) an “energy field” and 3) space. The science does not support such a claim.

Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?​

https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html

No. Experiments continue to show that there is no ‘space’ that stands apart from space-time itself…no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.

So God must have also directly created the 4th thing necessary: matter. Let’s call that matter, for the sake of a name, “rocks”. That would bring us back to CCC#318. If all else in the universe except man are secondarily cause then one must put the potential for all creation, save man, into that rock.
 
The article does not support your claim. It says, specifically, that matter and energy create space. The energy field which collapsed into physical matter and energy, therefore, does not cause issues according to your source.

Besides, we know from the Cosmic Microwave Background that the early universe was very, very hot. So hot that nothing could exist as matter. It took a certain amount of time for the energy at the beginning to condense into quarks.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
Information was front loaded right at the beginning?
Click to expand...
You are welcome to search for the text of ‘The Hunting of the Snark’ in the CMBR if you want. Or do you have some other evidence to show us?
 
Yes. Evolution was part of the grand design.
 
Last edited:
For the natural selection and random mutations can do all things crowd…
The Third Way

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis. Many scientists today see the need for a deeper and more complete exploration of all aspects of the evolutionary process.

Even today, the general public, and many scientists, are not aware of decades of research in evolutionary science, molecular biology and genome sequencing which provide alternative answers to how novel organisms have originated in the long history of life on earth.

Evolution is a complex subject, and projections and hypotheses will need to be based on documented empirical results.

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/

…and many of them are here clutching so hard to the obsolete paradigm despite years of me showing papers they have chosen to ignore.
 
Last edited:
Their full disclosure.

It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else.

(that is why the broke for tea. lol)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top