P
Pattylt
Guest
Yes, the only front loading involved is the ability of DNA to mutate! That’s all it needed!
Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
I agree. Too many here deny cell directed mutations.
B
buffalo
Guest
Since the fall genetic entropy is leading to the brittleness of organisms and their eventual extinction.
B
buffalo
Guest
We are getting closer.
The ability to change and cell directed mutations allow a limited amount of adaptation. That is the beauty of the design.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Static evidence is insufficient. A dynamic claim requires dynamic evidence.
Further, the claim that evolution is non-directed also needs evidence. The theory claims that the only dynamic process driving natural selection is the environment. Science demonstrates that there have been at least five ice ages in the last million years. As the earth changes from hot-house to ice-house and vice-versa, we would expect natural selection to devolve living creatures to previous ones. A cyclic environment does not explain the evolution of bacteria to man.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
And your support for this statement is? Where is your evidence? Where is your dynamic evidence in support of what you are saying? You need dynamic evidence of course because static evidence is insufficient.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Simple logic. If I claim that Clark Kent is Superman then a movie of Clark in the phone booth would do nicely.
P
Pattylt
Guest
What’s the limit?
P
Pattylt
Guest
Between all the life that has previously existed and all the various life that currently exists, I find this statement absurd.
Except for humans that can use their brains to adapt to a wide variety of circumstances, most animals are very dependent upon their environment. It isn’t just temperature, it’s food sources, amount of daylight, sexual selection, altitude, latitude, longitude, water scarcity or abundance…
We see evidence of some species thriving for thousands of years because they can adapt to a wide range and we see species that have come and gone in relatively short periods of time and we see species that have mutated over and over to become what they are now. They aren’t brittle by any means. They are thriving quite nicely.
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Sorry about the confusion - I think we both agree that God supplied the raw materials, forces and natural laws that are necessary for stars to form.
“God said 'Let there be light”, and there was light" (Genesis 1).
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Considering that your are an atheist and therefore your psychological need to believe Darwinism, your reaction is understandable.
Why was S.J. Gould puzzled and frustrated by the Cambrian explosion?
Why did Richard Dawkins comment that the Cambrian biota appear suddenly, fully-formed and without any evolutionary history?
Why does one of the world’s most esteemed paleontologists - Gunter Bechly - say it is “absurd” for Darwinists to deny the Cambrian explosion is a problem for their theory? (Bechly has discovered more than 170 new species and has 11 biological groups named after him.)
F
Freddy
Guest
We’re still waiting for you to produce the evidence you don’t seem to have. A whole load of nothing whatsoever apparently. An empty box. All we get is ‘Cambrian Explosion!’ Nothing but negativity. Nothing positive. Nothing that we can examine. Nothing to investigate. Nothing to discuss. Nothing you need to back up. Nothing to consider. Nothing to which you can be held to account. Nothing at all…Freddy:
Considering that…
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
If by this you mean that God started the universe rolling and didn’t provide (name removed by moderator)ut for a while, I agree. God doesn’t start starbirth, but the reasons it occurs are due to the design of creation.
B
Buzzard3
Guest
I don’t deny evolution - I accept that the fossil record reveals a sequence of events that could be loosely called “evolution”.
No evidence of gaps in the fossil record? Surely you jest?
No one can ever know what “evolutionary process” was responsible for the fossil record, and frankly, all those Darwinist explanations that can’t be tested put me to sleep. Theories that can’t be tested don’t even qualify as science … zzzzzzzzzz …
B
Buzzard3
Guest
Lenski’s E. coli evolved into … wait for it … more E. coli. This is powerful evidence that man evolved from a bug via a natural process of mutations and natural selection - aka, science at its best!
B
Buzzard3
Guest
More than 40 BST* Edicaran- Cambrian deposits have been discovered and NOT ONE OF THEM reveals the evidence of pre-Cambrian evolutionary antecedents that Darwinist theory predicts. There is almost nothing to support evolution. Please explain.
(* BSTdeposits are known for their ability to fossilize soft-bodied organisms.)
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
So, you fail to provide definitions of “static evidence” and “dynamic evidence”. Looks like I need “simple logic” and mind reading powers to find the support for your statements. Colour me unconvinced.
R
rossum
Guest
A similar approach can be applied to living organisms. God did nor say “Let there be fish,” He said, “Let the waters bring forth…”
Abiogenesis and evolution can be seen as describing that bringing forth in more detail.
F
Freddy
Guest
It might be prudent to check your position on various aspects of this debate. Scattergun responses and non sequitors tend to muddy the waters somewhat. So why don’t we go back the last couple of hundred posts and see, in no particular order, what your position could be.Freddy:
I don’t deny evolution…
First you deny that God could use evolution. Then you accept that He could.
Then you deny nuclear fussion is a natural process. Then you accept that it is.
Then you deny that you any idea on how life has progressed. Then you say we should theologically accept the Genesis account. But then you deny that you suggested that evolution does not conflict with Christianity.
Then you say it’s unknowable and then you say that it was supernatural.
Then you say that evolution is not the answer and then you deny that you said that God ‘didn’t use evolution’. Then you say that you don’t deny evolution.
Then you declare it’s creationism and not evolution. And then you state that ‘Darwinism’ is the best scientific evidence there is but then go on to say that ‘Darwinism’ conflicts with the evidence.
Then you say that the dna from a single celled creature could be used to ‘create all life on earth’ and then say that you have no idea how it could be done.
Then you say that you don’t reject evolution and the fossil record appears to support it then you say no-one can know what that process was.
That about sums it up really. I’m not sure what your position actually is. And more to the point, it’s pretty obvious from just the last 200 or so posts that you don’t know what it is either.
Thanks for playing…
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Unconvinced? No, rather we color you incorrigible on evolution and understandably so. You and the other atheists have a worldview that is wed to the theory and so exhibit confirmation bias for all things that seem to affirm and peripheral blindness for all things that oppose. Others, i.e., Catholics, who do not rely on the truth of evolution theory to support their worldview do not suffer your bias and are more objective in analyzing the theory for its validity.o_mlly:
So, you fail to provide definitions of “static evidence” and “dynamic evidence”. Looks like I need “simple logic” and mind reading powers to find the support for your statements. Colour me unconvinced.
The cyclical environment is just another stumbling block to evolution theory that you simply dismiss rather than address.
- Status