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:
So hard to just answer yes
Click to expand...
“Yes” would imply that I believed the condition is met. But in any case, if the condition is met the consequence is true.

OK. Does that take us anywhere, or does everyone on the site have to concur?
 
o_mlly said:
Exogenously
Click to expand...
All atoms in rocks are exogenous. All atoms in living organisms are exogenous. Atoms were either made shortly after the Big Bang when hydrogen and a few other elements condensed out, or were/are made in stars during stellar nucleosynthesis.

No atoms whatsoever start out in living organisms.

You have not yet explained what you mean by “potential for life”. Any atom with that property (whatever it is) originated away from earth and not as part of a living organism.
 
How and when does Adam fit into your view of human history?

I have trouble reconciling Adam with the scientific account of history. Maybe you can help me understand it.
 
Adam was the first ensouled man. I’m not exactly sure when God ensouled Adam, but I do know that, through Church teaching, He did it at some point. We also know that he, along with his wife, committed some first sin that separated man from God. My guess? These things happened near one of the bottlenecks in the human population, and over time, all men became descendants of Adam and Eve. Basically, their children had wives from outside their family, humans without souls.
 
rossum said:
Are you still claiming that 5 to 15 million years is “suddenly”? You will not find many people who agree with you on that.
Click to expand...
The fact that dozens of new animal phyla appear in the Cambrian without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors represents a big problem for Darwinism. As Gunter Bechly says, to claim that it isn’t a problem is “absurd”.
 
rossum said:
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”.
Click to expand...
No one can possibly demonstrate or know the process responsible for the history of life on earth.

For example, how can anyone know or demonstrate how a bird evolved from a reptile? That event can’t even be observed, so how on earth can anyone know how it happened? so in this respect, evolutionary theory can’t be tested- If a theory can’t be tested it is not even science, but just a story.

Furthermore, no one can even demonstrate that a bird evolved from a reptile via any biological process - come to think of it, no one can even prove that a bird evolved from a reptile in the first place!
 
Last edited:
The theistic evolutionary theory that ensouled humans bred with non-souled humans is worthy of mention. Bizzare … Disturbing … Creepy.
 
Last edited:
Homo Sapiens, then. I think you understand what I meant, though.
Buzzard3 said:
Bizzare … Disturbing … Creepy.
Click to expand...
Then you’ll be absolutely terrified to know that pretty much all non-Africans have Neanderthal ancestors. DNA sequencing of European populations has shown repeatedly that there are certain Neanderthal DNA markers in our genetic code that Sub-Saharan Africans don’t have in large quantities.
 
Last edited:
Yep, God was so disinterested in life on earth that he left that boring to a pr machine.
 
One can be interested and observant without active interference, similar to how chemists can be fascinated by a volatile reaction without putting their hand inside the beaker.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Then you’ll be absolutely terrified to know that pretty much all non-Africans have Neanderthal ancestors. DNA sequencing of European populations has shown repeatedly that there are certain Neanderthal DNA markers in our genetic code that Sub-Saharan Africans don’t have in large quantities.
Click to expand...
So which ones had souls and which didn’t?
 
Can’t say for sure, because I’m not entirely sure when man was ensouled. Can say pretty conclusively, though, that I don’t believe any Neanderthals had souls.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Adam was the first ensouled man. I’m not exactly sure when God ensouled Adam, but I do know that, through Church teaching, He did it at some point. We also know that he, along with his wife, committed some first sin that separated man from God. My guess? These things happened near one of the bottlenecks in the human population, and over time, all men became descendants of Adam and Eve. Basically, their children had wives from outside their family, humans without souls.
Click to expand...
When it gets the stage when we have souled humans breeding with un-souled humans, I know there is something terrible, terribly wrong with theistic evolution.

Which race of humans did Adam sire? When and where? What scientific evidence is there of Adam’s master race of ensouled humans taking over the world? Theistic evolutionists are very short on answers and are unconvincing - what a pity they aren’t as sure about Adam as they are about him having a bateria as an ancestor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top