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

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/
Click to expand...
But here’s some information from that link which is the basis for the proposal you are making and you deny it completely:

‘In the genealogy of the evolutionary developments of primates, the gibbons do occupy a key position. In the course of the evolutionary process, they were the first to split from the hereditary line of the great apes and humans.’

Why are you presenting evidence that’s based on things you don’t believe? That makes no sense.

I’ve explained this to you before on multiple ocassions. If you keep linking to information that is not directly from an ID site, that is - sites and articles and papers that reflect the actual science, then it will refute what you believe.

You’ll be found out every time.
 
Last edited:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
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.
Click to expand...
? The article directly supports my claim and refutes your theory:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
… some sort of energy field which expanded space then grew weak and collapsed into matter and energy at the big bang.
Click to expand...
o_mlly said:
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?

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

No.
Click to expand...
The article does not say as you posted, “It says, specifically, that matter and energy create space.” The article says, “space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field.” The gravitational field is not space but a feature of space.

Putting aside what is more speculation than science on the beginning of the universe, the point being made is that whatever you claim as the direct work of God’s hand must have the potential to explain all that exists in the universe. Secondary causes cannot “produce and give being to that which [they] had in no way possessed it …”. Neither rocks nor “fields of energy” can explain the diversity of life we observe.
 
Last edited:
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
It did. I don’t see a problem.
Click to expand...
For one who does not see God, all things can appear possible, even life giving rocks. Got any data to support that?
Click to expand...
Well, we can actually see the evolution of stars and galaxies. We know how tbe elements formed. We know how the stars formed. We know that worlds other than ours have evolved. We know how atmospheres are formed. How continents and oceans come to be. And all formed by what we call natural processes. That cannot be in dispute (well, except by young earthers).

So all we need is for life to start. And maybe you think that the natural processes that God had put into place weren’t sufficient for that step. That God couldn’t organise things for it to happen as naturally as everything else and had to step in a second time.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
But here’s some information from that link which is the basis for the proposal you are making and you deny it completely:

‘In the genealogy of the evolutionary developments of primates, the gibbons do occupy a key position. In the course of the evolutionary process, they were the first to split from the hereditary line of the great apes and humans.’

Why are you presenting evidence that’s based on things you don’t believe? That makes no sense.

I’ve explained this to you before on multiple ocassions. If you keep linking to information that is not directly from an ID site, that is - sites and articles and papers that reflect the actual science, then it will refute what you believe.

You’ll be found out every time.
Click to expand...
If one honestly starts looking into the publications they will see many different ideas. One thing to notice, lots of agency and design.

Takeaway - what I have been saying - ns and rm cannot do what has been claimed. It is pretty much dead. Take note.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Freddy:
But here’s some information from that link which is the basis for the proposal you are making and you deny it completely:

‘In the genealogy of the evolutionary developments of primates, the gibbons do occupy a key position. In the course of the evolutionary process, they were the first to split from the hereditary line of the great apes and humans.’

Why are you presenting evidence that’s based on things you don’t believe? That makes no sense.

I’ve explained this to you before on multiple ocassions. If you keep linking to information that is not directly from an ID site, that is - sites and articles and papers that reflect the actual science, then it will refute what you believe.

You’ll be found out every time.
Click to expand...
If one honestly starts looking into the publications they will see many different ideas.
Click to expand...
You bet. Evolution is a complex subject and people have slightly different ideas as to how to explain various facets of it.

But if you post from reputable sites and peer reviewed papers and skip tbe ID sites then those sites and papers will contain basic concepts of evolution, on which the papers are based, which directly and
fundamentally contradict what you believe.

For example, the paper is based on the fact that we have a common ancestor with gibbons. And you deny that.

You are trying to use these papers to use minor facets of the science to directly challenge the very basis on which the same papers are written. It cannot be that you don’t realisee this, so I guess ignoring it is your only option.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
It cannot be that you don’t realisee this, so I guess ignoring it is your only option.
Click to expand...
One can easily see and now you are admitting (I hope others do, too) that new findings have left Darwin in the dust. You are the one ignoring the science which I have been providing for many years. It was inevitable that we should arrive at this point. The Third Way is an attempt to wiggle around design. However, it cannot, so we will see lots of research and claims that design and purpose came about naturally.

The landscape now looks like this:

Creation
ID
Thirdway (replacing darwin)
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Well, we can actually see the evolution of stars and galaxies.
Click to expand...
Rocks aggregate because of the force of gravity. No matter how many rocks coalesce, they still remain just rocks. So, how many rocks does it take for the rock to become able to produce other rocks?
Freddy said:
And maybe you think that the natural processes that God had put into place weren’t sufficient for that step.
Click to expand...
Faith and right reason cannot contradict. The rock does not and has not ever evidenced the potential for life. Therefore, the rock cannot be a secondary cause that becomes life. You may make the wild leap of faith to believe so but then I can dismiss your claim as patently unreasonable.
 
rossum said:
A rock probably contains oxygen. A rock can contain carbon. Do carbon and oxygen have “potential for life”?
Click to expand...
Is the carbon found in the rock intrinsic or the remnant of a living thing now dead encapsulated in the rock? If not intrinsic then the rock is not the cause of life.
 
Techno2000 said:
But, yet God didn’t have to wait Billions and Billions and Billions of years to create the fish and bread, and the water into wine.
Click to expand...
Do you deny that it is reasonable to believe that God might use one method at one time and a different method at a different time, for reasons of His own?
 
o_mlly said:
If not intrinsic then the rock is not the cause of life.
Click to expand...
All elements originated either in the Big Bang or from stars. In no case did any element originate in a living organism. All elements had a non-living origin.

Moon rocks contain both carbon and oxygen as well as other elements, and there are no living organisms on the moon.
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
Techno2000:
But, yet God didn’t have to wait Billions and Billions and Billions of years to create the fish and bread, and the water into wine.
Click to expand...
Do you deny that it is reasonable to believe that God might use one method at one time and a different method at a different time, for reasons of His own?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I don’t think he had to use evolution to created anything.
 
I don’t think (and as far as I can tell no one this thread thinks) that He had to use any particular method. I do believe that He chose to use evolution. It not only fits the observable facts best, but it also demonstrates His perfect knowledge of His creation that He could start it up and let it unfold over billions of years exactly as intended.
 
whatistrue said:
I don’t think (and as far as I can tell no one this thread thinks) that He had to use any particular method. I do believe that He chose to use evolution. It not only fits the observable facts best, but it also demonstrates His perfect knowledge of His creation that He could start it up and let it unfold over billions of years exactly as intended.
Click to expand...
Did god know what Adam would look like?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top