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

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

I was told those stories in Sunday School. And about the age of ten I couldn’t tell you what ‘metaphor’ meant but I knew that was what the stories were.

You have yet to reach this understanding.

 

[Freddy]

Catholics understand God to be Almighty, not omnipotent.

“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection.”

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

 

[buffalo]

“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent , eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection.”

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

I confess to Almighty God…

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

There are things God cannot do…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

“The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent , eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will, and in every perfection.”

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

I confess to Almighty God…

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

There are things God cannot do…

Evolution apparently being one of them.

You are reducing the concept of God to make Him fit your beliefs.

 

[buffalo]

Evolution apparently being one of them.

You are reducing the concept of God to make Him fit your beliefs.

Nice try.

God could have done it by evolution if He wanted as I have stated plenty of times before. He didn’t.

Nope.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

Not even astronomy is safe from it. Everything is a target when you’re on a rampage against truth.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Evolution apparently being one of them.

You are reducing the concept of God to make Him fit your beliefs.

God could have done it by evolution if He wanted as I have stated plenty of times before.

So now you say He is omnipotent. Best let Buzz know. You guys seem confused as to what He can and cannot do.

 

[buffalo]

Not even astronomy is safe from it. Everything is a target when you’re on a rampage against truth.

Not even Catholicism is safe from it. Everything is a target when you’re on a rampage against truth.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

Why limit God’s omnipotence to evolution. God created everything according to its kind, God created man from the dust of the ground. Then God left his creation to evolve.

If God is omnipotent, he must also have the power to create all life according to its kind.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

God created everything according to its kind, God created man from the dust of the ground. Then God left his creation to evolve.

Life has existed and evolved far longer than man has been around.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You read the wrong books, Eric. Evolution is not random.

Every book on evolution that mentions ‘random’ is in error. I think I shall have to wait for science to come up with a better theory.

If God had wanted to create Man then a inconceivably complicated piece of work wasn’t required.

God can do complicated, you mentioned his omnipotence.

If single cell life can exist perfectly well, there is no need for it to evolve into a T-Rex.

So you prefer a simpler answer. One that was written for people who didn’t have access to the knowledge that we have now.

The Bible is not limited to the knowledge of primitive people from the past. If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he has the power to have the Bible written as he wants.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If single cell life can exist perfectly well, there is no need for it to evolve into a T-Rex.

Sure there is. Bigger means less chance of getting eaten. Linking up with other cells means less work for you but more reward. Specializing cells means there’s even less work for more reward. There are plenty of reasons to be multicellular instead of single celled.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’m amazed that we have at least two Catholicswho are denying God’s omnipotence in order to support an argument that denies science as well.

Why limit God’s omnipotence to evolution. God created everything according to its kind, God created man from the dust of the ground. Then God left his creation to evolve.

If God is omnipotent, he must also have the power to create all life according to its kind.

Of course He could have. Let me know when you have positive evidence for this. We’ve had enough negativity (‘this isn’t true, it can’t have happened that way, it seems impossible’ etc etc).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You read the wrong books, Eric. Evolution is not random.

Every book on evolution that mentions ‘random’ is in error. I think I shall have to wait for science to come up with a better theory.

If God had wanted to create Man then a inconceivably complicated piece of work wasn’t required.

God can do complicated, you mentioned his omnipotence.

If single cell life can exist perfectly well, there is no need for it to evolve into a T-Rex.

So you prefer a simpler answer. One that was written for people who didn’t have access to the knowledge that we have now.

The Bible is not limited to the knowledge of primitive people from the past. If God has the power to create the universe and life, then he has the power to have the Bible written as he wants.

Did someone say that books on evolution didn’t mention random? C’mon, Eric. Do some reading. Of course they do. Parts of the process are truly random. But the whole process of evolution is not.

And the bible was written by, and for, people with limited knowledge. They obviously wouldn’t understand the mechanisms by which life (and the world itself) evolved. So they were given a story which they could understand which fitted their knowledge. Anything else would have made no sense.

Unfortunately, now we have used our God-given intelligence to work out how He did it, it still makes no sense to an awfully large proportion of people.

 

[Buzzard3]

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.)

Bizarre.

Evolution conflicts with Christianity and that Earth is not as old as evolution requires

I have never said ‘evolution’ conflicts with Christianity.

I have no idea how long ‘evolution’ requires.

That’s why we don’t use Darwinism anymore

The Cambrian explosion contradicts universal common descent, which is Darwinism.

Give me a few million years and an environment identical to the Mesozoic Era, and I will.

If a bird evolved from a reptile, we will never know how it happened.

Amphibians have a three-chambered heart, suggesting a gradual change.

The amphibian’s three-chambered doesn’t help you, although your comment is a good example of how Darwinists often rely on wishful thinking instead of rational thinking. The amphibian heart is still a single-circulation heart, which could not possibly have evolved into a double-circulation heart.
www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1113

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.

A vague answer that tells me nothing about the nuts-and-bolts of how a single-circulation heart could have evolved into a double-circulation heart.

But not if it happened in the past, no matter how well we can replicate its mechanisms today, or how well it explains observation?

I’m not aware of any ‘mechanisms today’ that suggest a bird can evolve from a reptile.

No , wait … there’s antibiotic resistance and sheep dogs evolving from a wolf! So convincing!

 

[Buzzard3]

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.

It makes sense theorectically that a beneficial mutation increases an organism’s chance of survival, but I don’t see how you can put a figure on it.

For example, you could closely observe two tadpoles surviving out of an original population of 200 tadpoles, but I don’t think you could determine which of them died/survived as result of pure luck or a beneficial mutation.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

universal common descent, which is Darwinism.

If a bird evolved from a reptile, we will never know how it happened.

We can know, but if you want your demanded kind of evidence, we need some special conditions. Evolution isn’t just something that happens the same way in every situation.

The amphibian heart is still a single-circulation heart, which could not possibly have evolved into a double-circulation heart.

See, you insist on this idea, but you never back it up. Biased articles aren’t proof.

Plus, that article does nothing but speculate about the heart, not backing itself up either.

A vague answer that tells me nothing about the nuts-and-bolts of how a single-circulation heart could have evolved into a double-circulation heart.

“How could it have done so?”

“Mutations that provide survival advantages”

Mutations that separated blood vessels leading to the lungs from the rest of the body, most likely. That’s a huge boon to survivability on land.

I’m not aware of any ‘mechanisms today’ that suggest a bird can evolve from a reptile.

Seriously?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

but I don’t think you could determine which of them died/survived as result of pure luck or a beneficial mutation.

Over a very long period of time, chance becomes less relevant and only changes in % survival are. That’s when you know adaptations have occurred.

 

[Buzzard3]

So you do have an explanation. And it’s the same as Eric’s. It’s creationism

God created the first living organism and God created every creature that came after it.

Best let Buzz know.

God could have used ‘evolution’ to create life. i’ve never said he couldn’t.

 

[Buzzard3]

Thanks for going to the trouble of providing that explanation.

A nuclear fusion reactor cannot arise from chaotic matter without an intelligent designer and creator pulling the strings.