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

[rossum]

Silly. Do you know what else is activity? All motion.

Silly. Do you know what electrons are? They are matter. They are part of atoms and matter is made of atoms.

Any matter above absolute zero is in motion from heat energy. Every atom in a dead body at room temperature is in motion. Just because your eyes cannot distinguish the motion does not mean that the motion is not happening.

You need better sources.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So…what is it?

Be patient.

Your only positive (name removed by moderator)ut in the last one hundred posts or so (your suggestion that we check that far back) is that there is no alternative.

Have you really been arguing all this time against evolution with no idea of an alternative? That really makes zero sense. Surely you must have an opinion. Surely you must have an idea. Surely there must be some process in which you believe.

It can’t be that there is nothing available. That’s not credible. If you don’t believe in creation as per Genesis then say so and give us an alternative. If you do then say so.

Why is this so difficult? Do you feel like you ‘lose the debate’ if you give your proposal for what happened? Tell us what you believe…

 

[buffalo]

As the only mutations going on? Yes.

No one said the only. Do you deny any cell directed mutations?

 

[buffalo]

The exact same genetic code for making something does point to a common ancestor.

It points to common design. Designers use the same building block to construct many designs. Utilize and build upon what you already have.

 

[buffalo]

Similarity in position and/or structure is evidence for shared ancestry. Or are you telling us that all those DNA paternity tests the courts use are not really evidence of paternity?

Common descent in not an issue. Universal common descent is.

 

[o_mlly]

Following your chain of posts:

o_mlly:

What is the material (matter) difference between any living creature and that same creature immediately upon its death? Nada.

A large reduction in the electrical activity …

Electrical activity is electrons moving.

Every atom in a dead body at room temperaAture is in motion.

Your logical problems persist. You just cannot have it both ways (at least in Western Philosophy).

If only Frankenstein got the placement of the anode and cathode correct the electricity from the lightening bolt could… but wait – all those electrons are still moving!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
You’re going to feel a little pinch …

 

[rossum]

Common descent in not an issue. Universal common descent is.

So, where is your evidence for the breaks in common descent that show universal common descent is incorrect?

Eukaryotic cells contain elements from both archaeal and bacterial DNA, so if there was a break it was very early. All eukaryotes, ourselves included, share elements of both lineages so we have evidence of common descent back to the first eukaryotes.

I await your evidence for the location of the breaks with interest.

 

[rossum]

Your logical problems persist. You just cannot have it both ways (at least in Western Philosophy).

Electrons move. Atoms move. There is no logical problem.

 

[buffalo]

Your theory for the reason that life is so diverse now, and the evidence that supports it.

Lineage splitting.

 

[buffalo]

shown mutations of the instructions for this combination have resulted in more complex hearts among

Were they cell directed?

 

[buffalo]

What is your theory for how a double-circulation heart (fish) evolved from a single-circulation heart (amphibian)?

It just did and the god of BUC did it. We just know it.

 

[Buzzard3]

Theistic Darwinists are a mysterious breed - they defend their theory with religious fanaticism, as if it’s vitally important to believe that God used neo-Darwinian mechanisms to create the history of life on earth. I can understand atheists being so fanatical, but I can’t figure out why theistic evos subscribe so obediently to this useless myth… it’s all too bizarre for my little mind to figure out.
Perhaps they have professional reasons for joining the cult of Darwinism.

 

[rossum]

Theistic Darwinists are a mysterious breed - they defend their theory with religious fanaticism, as if it’s vitally important to believe that God used neo-Darwinian mechanisms to create the history of life on earth. I can understand atheists being so fanatical, but I can’t figure out why theistic evos subscribe so obediently to this useless myth… it’s all too bizarre for my little mind to figure out.
Perhaps they have professional reasons for joining the cult of Darwinism.

One way to tell a fact-free post, containing no evidence for its assertions is to see how easy it is to turn the post around to point the other way. Like this:

Theistic Creationists are a mysterious breed - they defend their theory with religious fanaticism, as if it’s vitally important to believe that God used Creationist mechanisms to create the history of life on earth. I can understand atheists being so fanatical, but I can’t figure out why theistic creos subscribe so obediently to this useless myth… it’s all too bizarre for my little mind to figure out.
Perhaps they have professional reasons for joining the cult of Creationism.

Four changes, none of which related to any evidence. Your post was personal opinion, and as such contained zero scientific evidence.

 

[Techno2000]

Theistic Darwinists are a mysterious breed - they defend their theory with religious fanaticism, as if it’s vitally important to believe that God used neo-Darwinian mechanisms to create the history of life on earth. I can understand atheists being so fanatical, but I can’t figure out why theistic evos subscribe so obediently to this useless myth… it’s all too bizarre for my little mind to figure out.
Perhaps they have professional reasons for joining the cult of Darwinism.

Right,and if God used evolution, then there’s would be nothing random or blind about it.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Theistic Darwinists are a mysterious breed - they defend their theory with religious fanaticism, as if it’s vitally important to believe that God used neo-Darwinian mechanisms to create the history of life on earth. I can understand atheists being so fanatical, but I can’t figure out why theistic evos subscribe so obediently to this useless myth… it’s all too bizarre for my little mind to figure out.
Perhaps they have professional reasons for joining the cult of Darwinism.

There are many things I am smart enough to not say right now. However, I will say that throughout this thread, all you have done is ridicule evidence, then ignore any refutation of your claims. You defend whatever your theory is without question or open mind, something you accuse us of despite never actually addressing any of the problems in your theory, all while we address the issues you see in ours.

Your last line of defense is to repeatedly call it “mythical” and "fairy-tale"ish because you’ve finally run out of evidence, or at least it appears so. The fun part about being right is we could go on all day debunking your arguments without resorting to other strategies, but it appears you cannot.

I at least hope others see through the charade.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

What is your theory for how a double-circulation heart (fish) evolved from a single-circulation heart (amphibian)? Good luck with that.

Hold on, I was reading back through the thread and saw this. I don’t think there’s a better example of you not knowing enough to dismiss evolution than this.

Fish evolved into Amphibians. Not the other way around.

Unless, of course, it was a typo. After all, you did mix up which group has what directionality. In that case, it’s just a case of dismissing evidence.

 

[MedievalCath]

I find that the evidence from Eucharistic Miracles can surely put biological evolution into question. Let’s take a look at the case in Buenos Aires (1996). The findings show living (w/ white blood cells) human heart tissue from the left ventricle. Though a miracle and not repeatable in a lab, this is a major finding for those of us who are Catholic. Much of the same can be found in Lanciano (8th century) and other cases. In these instances, belief that these miracles occurred means that life arose from non-life with no need for evolution.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I find that the evidence from Eucharistic Miracles can surely put biological evolution into question.

That came way out of left field…

Let’s take a look at the case in Buenos Aires (1996). The findings show living (w/ white blood cells) human heart tissue from the left ventricle. Though a miracle and not repeatable in a lab, this is a major finding for those of us who are Catholic.

Okay…

Much of the same can be found in Lanciano (8th century) and other cases.

Mhmm…

In these instances, belief that these miracles occurred means that life arose from non-life with no need for evolution.

You…do know what evolution describes, right? Eucharistic Miracles have nothing to do with it. It’s the mechanism by which life becomes diverse and adapts to changing habitats, not whatever you must think it is.

 

[MedievalCath]

Are we not discussing genesis and debating ideas concerning abiogenesis and evolution as compared to a more miracle driven creation? I’ve seen much talk concerning God’s decision to create and whether he did do so by utilizing building blocks with natural processes to produce his organisms or simply go with spontaneous creation. For me, these miracles show the latter. I’m simply pointing out that eucharistic miracles can show that living matter has arisen spontaneously without need for any natural processes.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Are we not discussing genesis and debating ideas concerning abiogenesis and evolution as compared to a more miracle driven creation?

Abiogenesis and evolution do not go hand in hand. I certainly doubt one but wholeheartedly believe the other. As it stands now, all you’re doing is proving that God has the capacity to create living matter where there was none before, something nobody here doubts.

I’ve seen much talk concerning God’s decision to create and whether he did do so by utilizing building blocks with natural processes to produce his organisms or simply go with spontaneous creation.

This part is true. The debate is whether God used evolution or (insert theory they haven’t told us here) to create life’s diversity on Earth.

For me, these miracles show the latter.

These miracles provide 0 evidence against evolution. Period.

I’m simply pointing out that eucharistic miracles can show that living matter has arisen spontaneously without need for any natural processes.

It’s certainly possible, but all available scientific evidence points to universal common descent via evolution being the cause of Earth’s biodiversity.