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

[Buzzard3]

Because it then becomes the only explanation

Any scientific “explanation” for the process responsible for the history of life on earth is ultimately untestable, so I don’t pay much attention to scientists blowing smoke about the unknowable. Theories that can’t be tested don’t even qualify as science.

We can’t even be sure about WHAT happened, let alone explain HOW it happened!

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Guess all of astronomy is off the table then, too.

 

[Buzzard3]

A computer model of evolution wouldn’t operate at levels where chance is a concept.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that … ???

 

[Duke12VonFalkenburg]

And we’re still waiting for your scientific explanation of how it was done. What’s your theory? Surely you can’t be reduced to denigrating other theories without presenting an alternative…?

Was this directed at me?

I have two points to make about this. First I have to say is that Biological evolution is simply irrelevant to the truth of Christian Theism. Genesis 1 fits all manner of different interpretations and one is by no means committed to a 6 day creationism.The creationist picture of the world’s formation is not a necessary component of Christian belief. St. Augustine in the A.D. 300s wrote a commentary on Genesis and pointed out that the days do not need to be taken literally nor need the creation be a few thousand years ago. Indeed he suggested that God made the world with certain special potencies that would gradually unfold over time and develop. This interpretation came 1,500 years before Darwin.

Evolution has no bearing whatsoever–as far as I can tell–on anything relating to Jesus Christ. To me, the account of creation in Genesis is a way of explaining something that was completely beyond the understanding of ancient man. God is creator, but His method is rather irrelevant.

“There are no difficulties in explaining the origin of man in regard to the body by means of the theory of evolution. According to the hypothesis mentioned it is possible that the human body, following the order impressed by the Creator on the energies of life, could have gradually been prepared in the form of antecedent living beings [i.e. living beings that existed prior to humanity].”

St. John Paul II , “Humans are Spiritual and Corporeal Beings”, April 16, 1986.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Oh yeah, I forgot about that … ???

We all make mistakes.

 

[Buzzard3]

Guess all of astronomy is off the table then, too.

You mean like how an explosion of matter managed to produce untold numbers of nuclear fusion reactors called stars? I wonder which scientific “law” explains that.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

What part doesn’t make sense? Can’t correct misconceptions if I don’t know what confuses you.

It’s mostly gravity and momentum, though.

 

[Buzzard3]

What part doesn’t make sense? Can’t correct misconceptions if I don’t know what confuses you. It’s mostly gravity and momentum, though

Brilliant! Quick, go and tell those dumb scientists who can’t get a nuclear fusion reactor up and running that all they need are “gravity and momentum”!

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Do you understand how massive stars are?

The pressure has to be made artificially in order for a reactor to work on Earth. There’s no way to create that kind of gravitational pressure anywhere but the core of a star.

If you can’t/refuse to understand the scale of astronomical objects, how can you be asked to understand the scale of evolutionary timelines?

 

[Buzzard3]

                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae

Thank you, but that doesn"t tell me anything about the PROCESS responsible for reptile-bird evolution. All you’ve shown me are some of the alleged steps involved.

You “know” how God (allegedly) created birds?

No.

Is your God incapable of using evolution

Yes.

 

[Buzzard3]

Do you understand how massive stars are? The pressure has to be made artificially in order for a reactor to work on Earth. There’s no way to create that kind of gravitational pressure anywhere but the core of a star. If you can’t/refuse to understand the scale of astronomical objects, how can you be asked to understand the scale of evolutionary timelines

Right, so “gravitational pressure” turned matter into a nuclear fusion reactor … got it.

Solving the mysteries of the universe is so easy!

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Right, so “gravitational pressure” turned matter into a nuclear fusion reactor … got it.

Solving the mysteries of the universe is so easy!

At this point I’m almost convinced you have no idea how nuclear fusion works.

If you do, please explain it, so I know whether or not I need to.

It’s important that we know how far your opinions about science go; because right now, it seems that your dismissal of science goes far beyond evolution.

 

[PickyPicky]

From your atheist perspective, it’s reasonable to assume the first alleged prokaryote had “goals”?

Did the molecules that formed the first alleged prokaryote have the “goals of survival and reproduction”?

What is clear is that at some stage(s) the instinct(s) to survive and reproduce arose. Having arisen, they carried substantial evolutionary advantages. They are today among the most powerful instincts of humanity.

 

[rossum]

If a frog produces 200 tadpoles and only 2 survive to adulthood, is that the result of natural selection or chance? I imagine it would be impossible to say.

Not impossible. The answer is “yes” provided your “or” is an inclusive ‘or’. It is the result of both chance and natural selection. Natural selection biases the odds. For example, slightly better camouflage makes it a little less likely that you will be seen by a predator. Not impossible to see, but less likely. That biases the odds.

How do you factor in natural selection v. chance in your computer model for evolution?

By using averages. If the tadpole without the beneficial mutation has a 90% chance of being caught by a predator, then a tadpole with the beneficial mutation has an 89% chance of being caught. The beneficial mutation gives an advantage to those tadpoles carrying it.

 

[rossum]

Thank you, but that doesn"t tell me anything about the PROCESS responsible for reptile-bird evolution.

The process is evolution. There is a great deal of information on the processes involved in evolution available online and in the scientific literature. I suggest you start with Evolution 101.

No.

Then you have no explanation for the origin of birds while evolution does have an explanation as well as evidence supporting that explanation. Guess which one I decided to pick.

Yes.

Then your God is not omnipotent, because His inability to use evolution renders Him unable to do something that humans can do. Humans have caused the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, such as MRSA, by their use of antibiotics.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So you agree or disagree with the diagram detailing millions of years worth of evolution?

The theory of universal common descent is contradicted by the Cambrian explosion. Sorry, but Darwinist folklore is closer to wishful thinking than good science.

So what is your alternative?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Because it then becomes the only explanation

Any scientific “explanation” for the process responsible for the history of life on earth is ultimately untestable, so I don’t pay much attention to scientists blowing smoke about the unknowable. Theories that can’t be tested don’t even qualify as science.

We can’t even be sure about WHAT happened, let alone explain HOW it happened!

Well, you don’t seem to have any ideas. And if you don’t have any other explanation I guess there are just the two options. I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And we’re still waiting for your scientific explanation of how it was done. What’s your theory? Surely you can’t be reduced to denigrating other theories without presenting an alternative…?

Was this directed at me?

No. But thanks for the clarification.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

I am also waiting for something better than the ToE to turn up. If the evidence was truly convincing, then we would not be having all these arguments.

Faith in God helps me find peace.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ll go with the one that best matches the evidence until something better comes up.

I am also waiting for something better than the ToE to turn up.

So we have a theory which is based on the evidence and yet you will reject it without having an alternative.

Strange days…