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.
40.png
Freddy:
So what is your alternative?
My alternative is to admit that at this stage, science has no convincing explanation for the Cambrian explosion. A supernatural Creator is a pretty good alternative.
I’m not interested in the who. I want to know how you think it was done. If you think that God simply created ‘kinds’ as Eric suggested then tell us. If you don’t know how it was done, then say so.
 
I’m not interested in the who. I want to know how you think it was done.
I have no idea HOW it was done. How did all known animal phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion with bugger-all evidence of evolutionary ancestors? Sorry, but I don’t know how God performs miracles.

If you think that God simply created ‘kinds’ as Eric suggested then tell us./quote]
I don’t read Genesis literally. I don’t know what it means by ‘kind(s)’.
If you don’t know how it was done, then say so.
I’ve stated that I don’t know how it was done ever since I joined this thread.
 
Sorry, my original post (768) was poorly-worded and misleading, so I just went back an re-worded it
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
I’m not interested in the who. I want to know how you think it was done.
I have no idea HOW it was done.
It beats me how so many people will admit to having no idea how all this happened and yet will spend post after post telling everyone how it didn’t.

As I mentioned to an earlier poster, you bring nothing to the discussion. You have nothing positive to offer. You just stand on the sidelines and jeer.
 
Sorry, my original post (768) was poorly-worded and misleading, so I just went back an re-worded it
The link is still applicable. People have no problem in helping out if you don’t understand something. But surely we can expect you to do some research yourself. Otherwise what can we expect? To give some details only for you to play the sarcastic naysayer again?

Do some work. Read some science. Look for some answers. Offer some alternatives for heaven’s sake.
 
You say that like it’s some terrible thought crime. I see no problem with the position whatsoever, obviously, or I wouldn’t take it. Can you tell me why it’s wrong?
A human without a soul is just another ‘beast of the field’, so your idea of an ‘ensouled’ human breeding with an ‘non-ensouled’ human amounts to this: A human made in the image of God having sex with an animal … which is bestiality.

“I don’t denigrate science, just the stuff that conflicts with my preconceived notions about how things came to be.”
What are my ‘preconceived notions’ with regards to an explanation for the history of life on earth?
Darwinism conflicts with the evidence, not with an ‘preconceived notion’ I might have. Creation fits the evidence much better than Darwinist folklore does.
 
Last edited:
Scientific theories are not just “Oh, I think this.” They’re “This explains all the evidence we’ve gathered thus far and enables us to predict what we’ll see with future evidence gathering.” That’s evolution. Oh, and I want you to tell me all the differences between reptiles and birds that make you think they’re so different.
Take a reptile and evolve a bird from it - then I will know, not only that it’s possible, but also the process involved.
I’ll ignore your continued use of the incorrect term “Darwinism” and just say that yes, it can.
If you compare the structure of a single-circulation heart to that of a double-circulation heart, you will find that latter could not possibly have evolved from the former.
It can explain the rising of all sorts of organs. Slight changes to the genetic code can have drastic effects on how the body is structured.
Please explain what ‘selection pressures’ forced pieces of a reptile’s jawbone to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a bird.
Please explain what ‘selection pressures’ forced a single-circulation heart to evolve into a double-circulation heart.
 
Last edited:
Please explain how, after matter exploded in the Big Bang, nuclear fusion reactors called stars were formed from the chaos. Take me through the process involved.
This is my understanding, not necessarily 100% correct. Keep that in mind.

First: Big Bang. Matter and energy are present in expanding space. At this moment, temperatures are so hot that nothing exists beyond quarks.

Second: Things cool enough for quarks to condense into subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons). Still too hot for atoms, so they stay separate.

Third: Things cool enough for subatomic particles to link into hydrogen and helium nuclei. Electrons still not included.

Fourth: Things cool enough for electrons to join atoms. Space is now a bunch of gas.

Fifth: Gravity begins pulling clumps of gas together as the atoms attract one another. Temperatures increase as atoms are pulled together, but not enough to stop collapse.

Sixth: Atoms are packed so tightly and are under so much pressure that electrons in the center fly from their nuclei. The center of the cloud is now pure plasma.

Seventh: Atoms in the core are under so much pressure that they get close enough for the Strong Nuclear force to snap the nuclei together. They fuse from hydrogen to helium, releasing massive amounts of energy and some neutrinos.

Eighth: The energy release from fusion in the core finally produces enough pressure to stop the gravitational collapse of the cloud. It’s now a relatively stable gas ball, or a star.
 
A human without a soul is just another ‘beast of the field’, so your idea of an ‘ensouled’ human breeding with an ‘non-ensouled’ human amounts to this: A human made in the image of God having sex with an animal … which is bestiality.
Point me to where it’s said that bestiality is wrong because of the difference in souls. It’s wrong, but not because of that reason (from what I’ve seen.)
What are my ‘preconceived notions’ with regards to an explanation for the history of life on earth?
Evolution conflicts with Christianity and that Earth is not as old as evolution requires.
Darwinism conflicts with the evidence, not with an ‘preconceived notion’ I might have.
That’s why we don’t use Darwinism anymore 🙂
Take a reptile and evolve a bird from it - then I will know, not only that it’s possible, but also the process involved.
Give me a few million years and an environment identical to the Mesozoic Era, and I will.
If you compare the structure of a single-circulation heart to that of a double-circulation heart, you will find that latter could not possibly have evolved from the former.
Amphibians have a three-chambered heart, suggesting a gradual change. It’s hard to study heart evolution, as they’re not often preserved, but some clues point to gradual increases in complexity.
Please explain what ‘selection pressures’ forced pieces of a reptile’s jawbone to evolve into the inner-ear bones of a bird.
Not sure at this moment. I’d assume something to do with flight or better hearing. I’ll get back to you on that one.
Please explain what ‘selection pressures’ forced a single-circulation heart to evolve into a double-circulation heart.
More complex and less streamlined bodies have more risk that comes with mixing oxygenated and de-oxygenated blood, so separating the systems provides a survival advantage.
Of course one can extrapolate from evidence.
But not if it happened in the past, no matter how well we can replicate its mechanisms today, or how well it explains observation?
 
Yep, Darwinism can explain everything … but what a pity theories that can’t be tested don’t qualify as science - there just stories
All those cosmologists and geologists just wasting their time, eh?
 
Prove to me that …
Prove to me that Moses actually wrote the first five books of the Bible. Video footage of him writing. Eye-witness accounts. The original manuscript in Moses’ handwriting. A signed guarantee by Aaron. That sort of proof.

Science in general does not do proof; that is for mathematics. Science does evidence, and the evidence supports the evolution of birds from dinosaurian ancestors.
 
Others hold to it as well and reject the science because of that . It’s simply not possible to hold to two conflicting versions of how we came to this point.
I was in my forties when I started to search for God. I spent about three years
reading and evolution convinced me there had to be a God.

If it took about 1800 incremental and random mutations with natural selection to form an eye lens shape, then I question the use of the word ‘random’. If you have ten random steps going towards a goal, I could accept that as random. A hundred steps in the same direction pretty much destroys the word ‘random’. 1800 steps in seven specific directions means it is goal driven in my eyes. Evolution does not work towards goals.

Being kind, if it took a hundred incremental random steps with selection to form each of the following, 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. The only way this could be possible is if God was guiding it. If God is guiding it, then Genesis makes more sense to me.

No proof, just faith and trust in God.
 
40.png
Freddy:
Others hold to it as well and reject the science because of that . It’s simply not possible to hold to two conflicting versions of how we came to this point.
I was in my forties when I started to search for God. I spent about three years
reading and evolution convinced me there had to be a God.
You read the wrong books, Eric. Evolution is not random.

Some of you guys seem to have it completely backwards. If God had wanted to create Man then a inconceivably complicated piece of work wasn’t required. In fact it’s a design fault that we are so much a mixture of bits and pieces cobbled together by the evolutionary process. If God wanted to create us then sentient man-shaped mud would have done the job a lot better.

Life doesn’t need to be so complex. The environment doesn’t need to be so dangerous. The universe doesn’t need to be so large. Or so old. Or so inhospitable. You can add 9’s to 99.999% until the sun burns out and you won’t get anywhere near the percentage of the universe we’ll never access. It’s a waste of space.

But all of this points to an evolutionary process. Stars and galaxies evolve. Planets and continents and seas evolve. Life evolves. That’s why it’s such a messy state of affairs. And it seems it’s too much for you to comprehend. So you prefer a simpler answer. One that was written for people who didn’t have access to the knowledge that we have now.

And now we have it, what do you want to do with it? Reject it…
 
One that was written for people who didn’t have access to the knowledge that we have now.

And now we have it, what do you want to do with it? Reject it…
Didn’t have knowledge? Right from the beginning it was revealed:

In the beginning (time)
God created
the heavens (space)
and the earth (matter)

Provisional science just came to realize it nt long ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top