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.
o_mlly said:
Evolved, via random mutation and natural selection? I don’t think so. Monsanto’s “intelligently designed” plants resist glyphosate. Not much else.
Click to expand...
You need to research more before you post. Yes, Monsanto’s plants are designed to resist glyphosate. I was talking about the weeds which have evolved to resist glyphosate in the years since it was introduced. Glyphosate is now a part of the environment in many parts of the world. As a new element in the environment it is driving evolution where it is present.

See Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri for the research you should have done before posting.

By failing to do the necessary research you have left yourself open to an easy refutation.
 
rossum said:
40.png
o_mlly:
Evolved, via random mutation and natural selection? I don’t think so. Monsanto’s “intelligently designed” plants resist glyphosate. Not much else.
Click to expand...
You need to research more before you post. Yes, Monsanto’s plants are designed to resist glyphosate. I was talking about the weeds which have evolved to resist glyphosate in the years since it was introduced. Glyphosate is now a part of the environment in many parts of the world. As a new element in the environment it is driving evolution where it is present.

See Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri for the research you should have done before posting.

By failing to do the necessary research you have left yourself open to an easy refutation.
Click to expand...
You need to be more careful in planning your refutations. This one is just silly. You cite one species. That fits very nicely with my “Not much else”.
 
o_mlly said:
You need to be more careful in planning your refutations. This one is just silly. You cite one species. That fits very nicely with my “Not much else”.
Click to expand...
One species? That is one more species than you have examples of direct creation by any deity. You asked for an example and you got an example. Now I am asking for one example of direct creation of a species by any deity.
 
rossum said:
One species? That is one more species than you have examples of direct creation by any deity. You asked for an example and you got an example. Now I am asking for one example of direct creation of a species by any deity.
Click to expand...
Keep trying, friend. You tried the 5th (or was it the 6th) rule of the Atheist’s Play Book, "Give them microevolution evidence and pretend its macroevolution." Failing that, revert to Rule #2, “Hey, you’re a Christian!”

Do yourself a favor and please observe the first rule of hole digging.
 
o_mlly said:
Do yourself a favor and please observe the first rule of hole digging.
Click to expand...
Yes. When you have nothing to offer in evidence to support your position, then you are going to lose a scientific argument.

Where is your evidence of any deity directly creating even a single species?
 
And where is your theory for explaining all this? You’ve posted nothing except denials. Where’s the positive post that tells us what you believe?
 
@Freddy, he’s made it pretty clear by now that his answer is a miraculous event by God. It requires no further explanation as “miraculous “ by definition means “no evidence or explanation”. Any further evidence we throw his way will just be either denied or picked apart as not complete. Transitional fossils aren’t evidence because now you need the fossil between those two…then the fossil between the next two…and on and on.

The Cambrian explosion…which took millions of years of time…isn’t evidence because we don’t have the exact specimen he’s seeking. If one is found, it still won’t be complete enough. He wants skeletal formation from cartridge when cartridge doesn’t fossilize. Impossible evidence is, well, impossible!

This thread has gone where all these threads go. They don’t want the evidence we have. They want whatever evidence we can’t produce. They are here to deny, not learn and especially, not to accept it. I have no problem with them believing in a miraculous process but just state that’s what you believe. Acting like you’re sincerely asking questions is non productive and frustrating and time consuming if you already have the answers.
 
Pattylt said:
I have no problem with them believing in a miraculous process but just state that’s what you believe.
Click to expand...
Would that they’d do that. Getting them to give an honest account of how they think the process eventuated is like pulling teeth.

Imagine you’re discussing orbital mechanics with someone (c’mon, we do it all the time!). And he’s arguing that your delta v is wrong and your gravitational constant is out and your calcs won’t give your an elliptical orbit because your satellite mass is variable. And then it dawns on you - he’s a flat earther.

But instead of simply saying that circular or elliptical orbits are impossible with a flat earth, he argues every single point you make without ever admitting to his position. Ask him bluntly and you’ll get any number of deflections: It’s not important what I believe…I told you already…you are the one making the claims etc ad nauseum.

Why do people spend so much time arguing against and denying the details about a process they believe never happened. It’s extremely bizzare.
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
They don’t want the evidence we have.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Here is the latest? Do you accept it or just ignore it?

Do species really exist? Are genes destiny? Do only the fittest survive? Can we shape or stop evolution? New insights into nature are providing surprising answers, and a glorious new picture of life’s complexity

1 GENES ARENʼT DESTINY (genetic plasticity)
2 EVOLUTION SHOWS INTELLIGENCE (memory, optimization, induction)
3 MOVE OVER, SELFISH GENE (cultural group altruism)
4 THERE IS MORE TO INHERITANCE THAN JUST GENES (epigenetics)
5 SPECIES DONʼT REALLY EXIST (taxonomic anarchy)
6 ADAPT FIRST, MUTATE LATER (Neo-Lamarckian adaptation)
7 WE CAN SHAPE OUR OWN EVOLUTION (Niche construction)
8 CHANGE CAN BE QUICK (contemporary evolution)
9 SURVIVAL OF THE… LUCKIEST (genetic drift)
10 GENES DONʼT JUST COME FROM PARENTS (HGT)
11 SOME THINGS ARE BETTER AT EVOLVING (evolvability)
12 EVOLUTION FAVOURS CERTAIN OUTCOMES (developmental bias)
13 WE CAN STOP EVOLUTION (anti antibiotic-resistance)

 
buffalo said:
40.png
Pattylt:
They don’t want the evidence we have.
Click to expand...
Huh?

Here is the latest? Do you accept it or just ignore it?

Do species really exist? Are genes destiny? Do only the fittest survive? Can we shape or stop evolution?
Click to expand...
Yes, species do exist as a means to differentiate organisms using taxonomy. Just as genus and family and order etc exist for the same reason. S’been around for ages.

No, genes do not necessarily determine an individuals destiny. Nobody has argued that and nobody is likely to argue that.

No, not just the fittest survive. Nobody has argued that either. Sometimes the least fit get lucky and the most fit don’t. But on average they do. That’s how it works.

Yes we can stop, start and shape evolution. What a nonsensical question.

Now as you have presumably read and dissected each of those thirteen headings (surely you aren’t posting them as support for some position or other without having read them), maybe you can use your New Scientist subscription to precis each of them as written so we can discuss them.

What’s that you say? You don’t have a subscription to New Scientist? And you actually haven’t read any of them? And you want us to trust New Scientist just on your say so? But do you trust what they write?

Apparently not.

“The Huronian glaciation is the oldest ice age we know about. The Earth was just over 2 billion years old, and [home only to unicellular life-forms]”(Timeline: The evolution of life | New Scientist).

Read more: The history of ice on Earth | New Scientist

Two billion years? Why quote from a publication that you don’t trust to give accurate information about facts as basic as the age of the planet?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
New insights into nature are providing surprising answers, and a glorious new picture of life’s complexity
Click to expand...
"New insights into nature are providing surprising answers, and a glorious new picture of life’s complexity"
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Two billion years? Why quote from a publication that you don’t trust to give accurate information about facts as basic as the age of the planet?
Click to expand...
Exactly! I wouldn’t believe anything that said the Earth was flat, even if it said something I believed was true. I’d find another source.
 
buffalo said:
and a glorious new picture of life’s complexity"
Click to expand...
Can you give me the name of a scientist that has said life is not complex? Anyone?

Are we discovering it’s even more complex than we thought? Absolutely.

Is any of this overturning and refuting that evolutionary theory is wrong? No.

You’re playing games here. You try to use evolution to deny evolution. You seem to be looking for little crevasses to insert ID into it yet your links don’t do that at all. Evolution isn’t settled science. There is plenty more to learn and understand and everyone admits that!
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Pattylt:
Is any of this overturning and refuting that evolutionary theory is wrong? No.
Click to expand...
Yep, the god of BUC can do it.

With each complexity discovery the darwin ship is sinking. Time to abandon ship.
Click to expand...
Any chance of a precis of those New Scientist articles? And an explanation as to why we should accept what they say if they can’t even (according to you) get the age of the planet right?

You’re like a flat earther linking to NASA articles trying to prove that it’s turtles all the way down.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
And what is the god of BUC?
Click to expand...
I think it’s blind undirected chance. I think Buff believes that evolution somehow excludes God. Good grief, even I will accept the possibility that God set up everything so that the process would end up with us and I’m an atheist!

It’s kinda hard getting one’s head around that someone who doesn’t believe in God has more faith in His omnipotence than someone who does. Makes your head spin…
 
Last edited:
I’m another agnostic (some days I’m atheist, some days, not so sure) and I have no problem with the idea that God set the laws and started the process that led to us and all life. Buffs God isn’t as smart. His God seems to have to be involved in all the design processes. He hasn’t the ability to foresee His plan evolve from start to finish (assuming we’re finished). Time is more involved in Buffs God as well in order to complete the work in his much shorter time frame. Buff does give Him more than 6,000 years, though.

But, Buff assures us that scientists are going to throw out evolution any minute now! I’ve only been here two years so not long enough to see the eureka moment yet, I guess. :hugs:

Hang in there, Buff. Please don’t ask us to hold our breath, though…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top