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.
My response to this question is ready for when you present your own theory. No answers until then.
 
Even if it’s “God did everything” I want your theory and the evidence.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
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.
Click to expand...
This doesn’t address my point - an amphibian heart is a double-circulation heart. An evolutionary transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart is not so hard to imagine … they are both double-circulation hearts.

My point is that it’s impossible to imagine how a single-circulation heart (fish) could evolve step-by-step to become a double-circulation heart (amphibian).
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Even if it’s “God did everything” I want your theory and the evidence.
Click to expand...
You want my"theory" for how God performed the miracle of creation. You’re pulling my leg … very funny.
Do you want my “theory” for how Jesus turned water into wine, as well?

As for the “evidence”, there are the Cambrian explosion and the gaps in the fossil record. Plus, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding suggests there is a genetic barrier that prevents the evolution of one genus of organism from a different genus of organism.
 
Buzzard3 said:
You want my"theory" for how God performed the miracle of creation. You’re pulling my leg … very funny.
Click to expand...
You purport that evolution is deficient. Clearly there’s something it lacks. Fix that gap.

How did God make everything? In what order, and at what moment in time? We need details!
Buzzard3 said:
As for the “evidence”, there are the Cambrian explosion and the gaps in the fossil record.
Click to expand...
Absence of evidence…
Buzzard3 said:
Plus, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding suggests there is a genetic barrier that prevents the evolution of one genus of organism from a different genus of organism.
Click to expand...
That’s a lie. I need a citation.
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
What is your theory for how a double-circulation heart (fish) evolved from a single-circulation heart (amphibian)? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
If you knew anything about embryology, you’d know that hearts form the same way: Embryonic blood vessels combine to form the heart. Genetic studies have shown mutations of the instructions for this combination have resulted in more complex hearts among Amphibians and amniotes.
 
As for rabbits and dinosaurs…

Nothing about the environment was conducive to rabbit life. Too little land, no food, and temperatures were too far from modern temperatures.

None of these things are speculative, by the way. They’re all confirmed by other branches of science.
 
stoplooklisten said:
Similarity in position and/or structure could be “evidence” for something being shared but it may not be a shared ancestor. It could be a shared Intelligent Designer.
Click to expand...
It could be evidence for a lot of things. Science will go for the least complex possibility until more evidence comes along. An Intelligent Designer is more complex than evolution, so science goes with evolution until the evidence shows otherwise.
 
rossum said:
40.png
stoplooklisten:
Similarity in position and/or structure could be “evidence” for something being shared but it may not be a shared ancestor. It could be a shared Intelligent Designer.
Click to expand...
It could be evidence for a lot of things. Science will go for the least complex possibility until more evidence comes along. An Intelligent Designer is more complex than evolution, so science goes with evolution until the evidence shows otherwise.
Click to expand...
@rossum, thank for being open to the possibility of evidence showing otherwise. Before the 19th century or so, science generally accepted a Biblical model of Noah’s flood and successive layers of habitats being buried by it. Since then, most of science has carried a pervasive, a priori assumption that such a model is unacceptable. The science hasn’t really changed (transitional fossils have been wished for but have not been conclusively found). People really wanted to believe what Darwin said was possible (and exclude the God of the Bible). People believe what they want to believe. Many want to believe in evolution. Radiometric dating with very old dates supports much of that and distant starlight supports much of that but there are assumptions built into those. Observational science can repeat experiments and use the scientific method but historical science is not like that. It must make assumptions.

Genetic mutations and natural selection are an inadequate mechanism. Genetic entropy causes genetic decay and diseases. GMNS provides no adequate mechanism for new information. GMNS provides no mechanism for coordinated, interdependent design.

Relative to the best explanation: The most probable explanation found for brilliantly designed physics and brilliantly designed beings is a brilliant Designer. How did He do it? It would be nice to know but we don’t need to know. God wasn’t obligated to leave a “bread crumb” trail for how He did it. God did reveal himself through the historical person of Jesus Christ (whom more than a few want to deny). Jesus affirmed Adam and Noah (and rose from the dead to live evermore).
 
stoplooklisten said:
Before the 19th century or so, science generally accepted a Biblical model of Noah’s flood and successive layers of habitats being buried by it.
Click to expand...
Before the 19th century, scientists thought “miasma” made us sick. We’ve discovered a lot since then.
stoplooklisten said:
Since then, most of science has carried a pervasive, a priori assumption that such a model is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Mostly because evidence tells us so.
stoplooklisten said:
The science hasn’t really changed (transitional fossils have been wished for but have not been conclusively found).
Click to expand...
No, the science has, and we’ve found lots of linking fossils that appear to be ancestor forms, along with DNA evidence pointing right at common descent.
stoplooklisten said:
People really wanted to believe what Darwin said was possible (and exclude the God of the Bible).
Click to expand...
No, we want to follow evidence instead of ancient superstition based on flawed interpretations of the Bible.
stoplooklisten said:
Radiometric dating with very old dates supports much of that and distant starlight supports much of that but there are assumptions built into those.
Click to expand...
Assumptions like “The laws of physics don’t change suddenly for old rocks” and “We can use mathematics to derive things.”
stoplooklisten said:
Genetic mutations and natural selection are an inadequate mechanism. Genetic entropy causes genetic decay and diseases. GMNS provides no adequate mechanism for new information. GMNS provides no mechanism for coordinated, interdependent design.
Click to expand...
I would love to see the evidence that genetic diseases, caused by copying errors, are actually caused by this nonsense notion of “genetic entropy.” No mechanism for new information? That’s like saying a computer will eventually be unable to receive new code and just stop working. DNA is an information platform, a programming language. Information is (name removed by moderator)ut based on how it’s put together. There is no magical frontloading because there is no system using up information.
stoplooklisten said:
most probable explanation found for brilliantly designed physics and brilliantly designed beings is a brilliant Designer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my useless appendix and wonky eyeballs are brilliant design. So is my best friend’s back, or her boyfriend’s deadly peanut allergy.
stoplooklisten said:
God did reveal himself through the historical person of Jesus Christ (whom more than a few want to deny). Jesus affirmed Adam and Noah (and rose from the dead to live evermore).
Click to expand...
I don’t deny this. All I’m saying is that your base assumptions are built on faulty information, and your theory does not match evidence or logical tests. You don’t have to be atheist to accept evolution. You just need to be reasonable and think about it. I hope I’m right in believing everyone here is capable of that.
 
Buzzard3 said:
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:
Your theory for the reason that life is so diverse now, and the evidence that supports it.
Click to expand...
You want my “theory” that explains the miracle of creation?
Click to expand...
No. That wouldn’t be a theory. We just want your idea of the process. I mean, how difficult can this be for you? Just tell us how you think it all happened. Do you think that your views may be ridiculed?

I really have a lot of difficulty understanding why you and others are so reticent in explaining what you think happened.
 
stoplooklisten said:
@rossum, thank for being open to the possibility of evidence showing otherwise. Before the 19th century or so, science generally accepted a Biblical model of Noah’s flood and successive layers of habitats being buried by it.
Click to expand...
You might be surprised there. Here is Leonardo da Vinci writing in about 1510:
"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.

“And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks…”
Click to expand...
Since then, most of science has carried a pervasive, a priori assumption that such a model is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
This is a gross mischaracterisation of science. Science has followed the evidence that there has been no recent global flood. The geological evidence and the biological evidence both consistently show that there has not been a recent global flood. For example, if all modern kangaroos are descended from a single pair, then where is the evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in kangaroos?
The science hasn’t really changed (transitional fossils have been wished for but have not been conclusively found).
Click to expand...
Erm… If there were only one pair of kangaroos on the ark, then where are your transitional fossils that show the recent fast evolution of modern kangaroos species? If there was only a single pair on the Ark, then that gives you one single species. Where are your post-flood transitional fossils for the other three species of kangaroo? What about Wallabies? There are eight living species of Wallaby. Did they have a separate pair on the Ark or are they also descended from the same pair as kangaroos?

You are the one who is grossly lacking in transitional forms.
Genetic mutations and natural selection are an inadequate mechanism. Genetic entropy causes genetic decay and diseases. GMNS provides no adequate mechanism for new information. GMNS provides no mechanism for coordinated, interdependent design.
Click to expand...
Your sources are lying to you. Normal evolutionary processes are perfectly capable of increasing information. Natural selection is effective at weeding out ‘genetic decay’ and susceptibility to disease. Why do you believe sources that lie to you?
 
rossum said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Activity is not matter. You need to be more logical.
Click to expand...
Electrical activity is electrons moving.
Click to expand...
Silly. Do you know what else is activity? All motion.

Hey, look old Bob ain’t movin’ anymore!
Just yesterday, he was movin’ around hanging up dry wall. Now he’s just lying there.

Why do you think defibrillation doesn’t work 100% of the time? You should read Mary Shelley’s novel. The difference between dead dog and live dog is not the absence of electrons.
Freddy said:
So…what is it?
Click to expand...
Be patient. It may take a few days for the meds to kick-in. Then hopefully you will be able to retain what you’ve read.
 
The evo advocates, like Monty Python’s Black Knight, have had their limbs amputated (PSR, complexity, design, probability, time) but continue to defend their beloved theory w/o anything new in evidence or argument. So, like the white knight, I can only leave the field and pity them in their denial of defeat.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top