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

[rossum]

Laughable you place so much faith on a few pieces of a 10,000 piece puzzle. Unless you a priori are convinced you know the picture on the box cover.

Laughable you place so much faith on a zero pieces of a 10,000 piece puzzle. Unless you a priori are convinced you know the picture on the box cover.

FTFY.

 

[rossum]

The better theory is ID.

ID is a “theory” without evidence. That means it is a hypothesis, not a theory. Only when it has been tested, and passed those tests, can it move from a hypothesis to a theory.

 

[buffalo]

ID is a “theory” without evidence. That means it is a hypothesis, not a theory. Only when it has been tested, and passed those tests, can it move from a hypothesis to a theory.

The evidence observed is mounting.

 

[rossum]

The evidence observed is mounting.

I observe no evidence in your post. I observe no reference to any evidence in your post.

Please show us your evidence of a non-human intelligent designer designing a living organism. I am aware that humans have designed parts of living organisms, Monsanto for instance.

 

[o_mlly]

Nobody is going to ridicule your beliefs.

And nobody here has ridiculed your beliefs in evolution unless, of course, you present your act of faith as if it is science fact.

 

[o_mlly]

Speciation is a result of mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection, geology and many others.

Speciation (whatever we want it to mean at any given instance) could be a result of mutation, natural selection, neutral drift, founder effect, sexual selection, geology and many others.

Just because your lying sources …

You’ve used this unfair retort numerous times. No need to get emotional. Apparently, you do not know what claiming another is “lying” entails, i.e., mind reading.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Does that mean he’s winning at last?

 

[rossum]

No hypothesis from you. No evidence from you. How are you going to convince anyone without either a hypothesis or evidence.

At least buffalo has a hypothesis.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Stop being so negative and give us all some positive details.

Why do you think it negative to call out bad science as bad science?

If you feel it’s bad science then I have no problem. But you are always negative. You do nothing but argue against what is being put forward. You spend every post denigrating any and all posts by those you see as the opposition. You ridicule any suggestions that run counter to what you believe. And you offer nothing positive. Nothing whatsoever. You suggest no alternatives. You proffer no other theories.

That’s what I mean by being negative.

So again, here’s your chance. Tell us how you think we came to be where we are now. As I said, nobody is going to ridicule honestly held beliefs. We may argue against the reasons why you hold them but if you hold them honestly then you’ll be respected for that.

So what are they?

 

[buffalo]

I observe no evidence in your post. I observe no reference to any evidence in your post.

Please show us your evidence of a non-human intelligent designer designing a living organism. I am aware that humans have designed parts of living organisms, Monsanto for instance.

Let’s see - probably 50 papers or more I have shared. I guess you didn’t even take the time to read any.

 

[Buzzard3]

As are your excuses for not giving us your alternative. Between the two of you there must be something you can propose.

You want me to offer a scientific theory for what is forever unknowable? That would be pointless.

 

[Buzzard3]

You believe the fantasy that first life-form arose naturally from inanimate matter, so it’s easy for you to believe the fantasy that the human eye could evolve naturally.
When it comes to origins, I would be a fool to trust the scientific judgement of anyone who abides such fantasies.

 

[Buzzard3]

In many organisms, we see where they started and we see where they ended up. Just because we don’t know each mutation along the way doesn’t me we cannot generalize about what happened. If whales still have leg bones and still occasionally have a small leg showing, I think it’s pretty easy to determine that they used to have usable legs. When scientists can look at the DNA of an organism and see which parts mutated and what those mutations determine…I think we’re getting somewhere.

Scientifically speaking, you have a point … But when you throw a Creator into the mix, scientific theories become irrelevant.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You want me to offer a scientific theory for what is forever unknowable?

Go tell astronomers, archeologists, and paleontologists that their fields are all crap.

Scientifically speaking, you have a point … But when you throw a Creator into the mix, scientific theories become irrelevant.

Thank you for finally admitting that you’re anti-science!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

As are your excuses for not giving us your alternative. Between the two of you there must be something you can propose.

You want me to offer a scientific theory for what is forever unknowable? That would be pointless.

Who said it needs to be scientific? I just want to know what you think happened as best fits the evidence. Give us your proposal. Give us your idea on what ocurred. Give us what you believe got us where we are now.

 

[rossum]

Let’s see - probably 50 papers or more I have shared. I guess you didn’t even take the time to read any.

I get over 5 million hits on Google Scholar for ‘evolution’.

And your guess is wrong, I have looked at some of those papers.

So far this year the Discovery Institute published four articles in its journal: BIO-Complexity. Four! ID is dying on its feet.

 

[rossum]

You believe the fantasy that first life-form arose naturally from inanimate matter,

Your mind reading powers have failed you. I am Buddhist and I believe that same thing about the origin of life as Christians do: life has existed eternally. Or do you think that is a ‘fantasy’?

so it’s easy for you to believe the fantasy that the human eye could evolve naturally.

The human eye is very similar to the chimpanzee eye. We inherited our eyes from our common ancestor with the chimps. We do have a few minor differences – chimps do not have blue eyes – but we have the same basic eye as our ancestors.

When it comes to origins, I would be a fool to trust the scientific judgement of anyone who abides such fantasies.

Galileo was wrong, the Bible says so, and you do not foolishly trust the scientific judgement of all those astronomers and their fantasies. Hmmm… Don’t call us, we’ll call you.

 

[o_mlly]

How are you going to convince anyone without either a hypothesis or evidence.

How are you going to convince anyone with a fatally flawed hypothesis?

I only appeal to those who are willing to critically examine evolution’s claim to explain the observed diversity of life on the planet from microbe to man. Some on the thread, I agree, are irrationally and invincibly wed to the theory for reasons I have already speculated upon. What’s yours?

Tell us how you think we came to be where we are now.

Asked and answered at least three times in the last 100 or so posts by me and others. You can relieve your apparent obsession (but understandable desire for an alternate theory to evolution) by simply reading (and retaining what you read).

Freddy:

But for us…there is simply no way to understand the chain of events that lead to a particular change.

At last. This admission of ignorance is refreshing.

If one cannot know the particular then knowledge of the general is all the more impossible.

You want me to offer a scientific theory for what is forever unknowable? That would be pointless.

 

[buffalo]

I get over 5 million hits on Google Scholar for ‘evolution’.

And your guess is wrong, I have looked at some of those papers.

So far this year the Discovery Institute published four articles in its journal: BIO-Complexity. Four! ID is dying on its feet.

Wow - evolution is true, number of hits is your indicator?

See, you missed all the other one’s. BTW- it only takes one.

 

[rossum]

How are you going to convince anyone with a fatally flawed hypothesis?

You have no hypothesis so you have nothing. Very Zen, but not good science.