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:
Would you nominate?
Click to expand...
If @o_mlly came up with a solid, evidence based theory that contradicted evolution? Are you kidding me? Like a shot. Why wouldn’t I want my name associated with the biggest upheaval in science in history?

We eagerly await the first draft…
 
Buzzard3 said:
40.png
rossum:
The fossils you want are You demand every possible fossil, while producing none of your own. Not all fossils have been found yet, just as the fossils of Seth and his wife have not been found yet … Living chordates such as tunicates and amphioxus do not have bones and hence do not fossilise well.
Click to expand...
Surely you’ve heard of Burgess Shale Type (BST) fossil deposits? They are noted for their ability to fossilize soft-tissue organisms. Over 40 such BST deposits have been discovered and not one of them provide evidence of the transitional fossils between pre-Cambrian and Cambrian biota that Darwinist theory predicts.
The lack of evidence for Darwinism’s theory of universal common descent is running out of excuses.
Click to expand...
As are your excuses for not giving us your alternative. Between the two of you there must be something you can propose.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
If @o_mlly came up with a solid, evidence based theory that contradicted evolution?
Click to expand...
If @Freddy could overcome his apparent OCD and read the posts, he would have his answer.
o_mlly said:
As to an alternate theory, there is none. Evolution, flawed as it is, is possibly the best pseudo-science theory today. But it is not the best possible theory for the diversification of life on the planet. Exactly what one would expect when science tries to explain first things constrained by the scientific method.
Click to expand...
The forum is, “Sacred Scripture”; not, “Sacred Science”.
 
o_mlly said:
40.png
Freddy:
If @o_mlly came up with a solid, evidence based theory that contradicted evolution?
Click to expand...
If @Freddy could overcome his apparent OCD and read the posts, he would have his answer.
o_mlly said:
As to an alternate theory, there is none. Evolution, flawed as it is, is possibly the best pseudo-science theory today. But it is not the best possible theory for the diversification of life on the planet. Exactly what one would expect when science tries to explain first things constrained by the scientific method.
Click to expand...
The forum is, “Sacred Scripture”; not, “Sacred Science”.
Click to expand...
You seem to spend a lot of time talking around this aspect of tbe matter. Do you mean by mentioning ‘sacred scripture’ that the process was supernatural? That all creatures great and small were created as they are now?

Feed us some details why don’t you. Nobody is going to ridicule your beliefs. Just tell us what they are. Stop being so negative and give us all some positive details.
 
o_mlly said:
The forum is, “Sacred Scripture”; not, “Sacred Science”.
Click to expand...
And your Sacred Scripture says “Let the waters bring forth…” Evolution has no conflict with that, since the first life appeared in the seas.

Or are you someone who interprets things woodenly literally and thinks that birds (day 5) appeared before land animals (day 6)? If so then you need evidence of birds before land animals.

Science says that birds appeared after land animals, and science has the evidence to support its claim.
 
o_mlly said:
I am someone who retains what he reads. Do you recall reading the Bible is not a science book?
Click to expand...
Which does not tell me whether or not you think (or have read) that birds appeared before fish.

And don’t forget that there are some people who think that the Bible is a science book, Ken Ham for example.
 
rossum said:
Which does not tell me whether or not you think (or have read) that birds appeared before fish.
Click to expand...
The bible does not make any distinction as to the precedence of fish or birds. And, even if the bible did, the bible is not a science book. So what’s your point?
rossum said:
And don’t forget that there are some people who think that the Bible is a science book, Ken Ham for example.
Click to expand...
If Mr. Ham considers conversion to Catholicism, hopefully his catechesis in RCIA will correct that.
 
o_mlly said:
So what’s your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that science has a provisional answer, supported by the available evidence.

You have not provided any sort of answer and no evidence.

In science, that means you lose I’m afraid.
 
rossum said:
My point is that science has a provisional answer, supported by the available evidence.
Click to expand...
If your point is that birds appear after fish in the fossil record (so far), so what? The thread seeks “to ascertain if the fossil record supports the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation as a result of mutation and natural selection.”

So far, nada evidence of a speciation event in the fossil record from evos. Bones in rocks do not evidence speciation events; they only evidence different species (whatever that word really means).
rossum said:
In science, that means you lose I’m afraid.
Click to expand...
Childish, to say the least.
 
o_mlly said:
If your point is that birds appear after fish in the fossil record (so far), so what? The thread seeks “to ascertain if the fossil record supports the neo-Darwinian theory of speciation as a result of mutation and natural selection.”
Click to expand...
Speciation is a result of mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection, geology and many others.
o_mlly said:
So far, nada evidence of a speciation event in the fossil record from evos. Bones in rocks do not evidence speciation events; they only evidence different species (whatever that word really means).
Click to expand...
Just because your lying sources to not mention it does not mean that there is not any evidence. Do you sources mention Gould’s paper on the evolution of Cerion: [Evolution and systematics of Cerion (Mollusca, Pulmonata) on New Providence Island : a radical revision. Bulletin of the AMNH ; v. 182, article 4 | Semantic Scholar]? If not then they are lying by omission.

Since you have presented no alternative to the evidence we currently have, then you are still losing. In an argument about science the evidence wins.
 
buffalo said:
Hmmmm - it is pure speculation based on _______________.
Click to expand...
It is based on evidence, or are you telling us that every criminal trial in court where evidence is presented is based on “pure speculation”? Do you realise how ridiculous these one-line attempts to shoot down evolution are?

Show us your evidence of any deity directly creating a new species. Oh dear, you don’t have any. Not a good look in science I’m afraid.
 
buffalo said:
Finally, the tide appears to be turning here at CAF.
Click to expand...
Erm… all answers in science are provisional. Newton’s theory of gravity was provisional. It was replaced by a better, but still provisional theory: General Relativity. That in its turn will be replaced by the theory of Quantum Gravity (when it arrives). All scientific theories are provisional and are open to replacement by better theories.

Your comment appears to show that you do not understand this basic fact about science: all scientific theories are provisional.
 
rossum said:
Your comment appears to show that you do not understand this basic fact about science: all scientific theories are provisional.
Click to expand...
uh no - you are finally coming around to understanding it after how many years. You are arguing in a much different manner than not too long ago.

The better theory is ID.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top