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:
The entire belief in macro-evolution is extrapolation.
Click to expand...
You are too generous.

A reasonable extrapolation projects or predicts what is shown in the data to situations beyond that data, e.g., beyond the collection of experiences. A reasonable extrapolation for Darwin’s observations might have been that morphological variations within in-breeding creatures is caused by random mutation and changes in environment. But that was well known at the time and would not have sold many books.
 
Amazing how all these threads eventually become anti-science echo chambers. Seems respectful debate never survives contact with certain posters.
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
This is not an example of moving up taxonomic classes. It is lineage splitting with loss of function once had.
Click to expand...
Macroevolution is lineage splitting – a new species branches off the old. The new species loses the function of breeding with the old species and the old species loses the function of breeding with the new species - that is reproductive isolation.

All you are telling us here is that you accept lineage splitting and reproductive isolation; i.e. macroevolution

You accept the facts but reject the name. That is a ridiculous position to take.
 
NSmith said:
where did the information detailing how lungs are formed and operated come from?
Click to expand...
From physics. Fish that feed near the surface sometimes eat floating food, like insects, and so sometimes gulp a little air with their food. By simple physics that air will accumulate at the top of the fishes’ digestive tract. If the fish lives in a low-oxygen environment, like a shallow stagnant marsh, then that extra oxygen in the air will be beneficial. Thus mutations which absorb oxygen through the gut wall, as well as food, will be beneficial. Reshaping the gut wall to hold more air will be beneficial. Lungfish, amphibians and other tetrapods all have lungs which branch upwards from their gut. That is why we can choke on food. If we were still on all-fours it would be much less likely because the air would be on top of the food. One of the less good pieces of design in humans.

In short, lungs are formed by physics and a change in shape of the gut wall.
 
I am not so sure about what is responsible. There has always been a lot of talk in these discussions about, "“letting the Bible talk about what it was meant for.” This has been understood as a way of undermining the historical veracity of the accounts contained in it, for which people believe there is contradicting information available in various scientific disciplines.

After the last couple of days I have come to believe that science, also, should talk about what it is suited for. And that realm is strictly about Creation as it exists, not about the act of creation which made it.

I believe that God created the world in a Word, because that is what He revealed. I don’t think He used natural processes at all to accomplish this. He has no need to do so, and He did imply that He did. To look at the processes that exist and to speculate about the act of God which made those processes is a venture that begins with false premises, and as a result the entire investigation produces only confusion, and even causes people to question Scripture.

Science and the Bible should stay in their competencies, it is true. The Bible teaches us salvation history, and the various methods that God has used to reveal himself to Man. Historical inquiries have, on the whole, confirmed the account presented in Scripture. There remain open questions, such as the date of the Flood and the evidence of Egyptian and Chinese civilizations in similar times. But Augustine was right to caution Christians to view with suspicion accounts that attempt to provide evidence contrary to Scripture.

Science shows us mechanisms and processes by which Creation operates. By its very nature Science is incompetent to speculate about the act of Creation, because the facts in evidence did not even exist for the event. The reason why anti-Science sentiment is evident in threads like these is a direct result of Science stepping into the discussion dishonestly. The scientist claims to be impartial, but demonstrates by the axioms of his craft that he has no place for God except perhaps as a clock-maker, who set things in motion. Therefore, to a scientist, there is no place for the idea that humans were placed fully formed onto the Earth. Implicitly, then, the aim of the scientist who is concerned with human evolution is to dismantle God’s word. Sometimes without even knowing it, the scientist can by degrees disregard his faith.

And Christians, far from identifying this problem and simply stating that the claims of the scientist have no impact of the truth of the account, have bent over backwards to provide reasons why God didn’t mean what He said. I am not frustrated with anyone in particular, but as a Protestant I had quite enough of people doing exegetical gymnastics to avoid what God was saying. In the end, historical sciences and the Bible are operating with different a priori claims. Such studies of history are not inerrant, and the Bible is. Christians that even admit into evidence studies of created processes are mistaken about the nature of Creation, which occurred supernaturally.
 
Last edited:
According to the fossil record, literally hundreds of animals appear in the Cambrian era without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors. This fact doesn’t support Darwinism.

Jesus raised a dead man from the dead, demonstrating that God could have created Adam from animate matter, just as Genesis 2:7 describes. No evolution necessary.
 
The miracle of creation cannot be explained by science. Pointing out the gaps in the fossil record, for example, is not anti-science. Critiquing Darwinism is not necessarily anti-science.
 
Darwinian history has no effect in science either. It’s just a useless story.
 
Buzzard3 said:
According to the fossil record, literally hundreds of animals appear in the Cambrian era without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors.
Click to expand...
Welcome to CARM.

Your sources are lying to you. Research the Ediacaran biota for better information on Precambrian life. You might want to have a look at Kimberella for example.

There is a lot of evidence. your sources are lying by omission in not showing you that evidence, or lying by commission by falsely telling you that there is no evidence.
This fact doesn’t support Darwinism.
Click to expand...
Two points. First, it is not a fact, but a lie from an unreliable source. Second, Darwinism was replaced by the Modern Synthesis in the first quarter of the 20th century, which included Mendel’s work on genetics. Since then Kimura’s neutral theory and the avalanche of new information from DNA sequencing have been incorporated into modern evolutionary theory.

As a rule-of-thumb, a source criticising “Darwinism” is not criticising modern evolutionary theory, but is criticising a strawman version of a nineteenth century theory that has since been greatly modified. Scientific theories are not static; they change as new information is discovered.

You need to find better sources.
 
rossum said:
As a rule-of-thumb, a source criticising “Darwinism” is not criticising modern evolutionary theory, but is criticising a strawman version of a nineteenth century theory that has since been greatly modified. Scientific theories are not static; they change as new information is discovered.

You need to find better sources.
Click to expand...
Uh, they are criticizing the recent version. That is what all the hoopla is about. You need to find better sources.

It cannot explain the most recent science and is being canned.
 
rossum said:
As a rule-of-thumb, a source criticising “Darwinism” is not criticising modern evolutionary theory, but is criticising a strawman version of a nineteenth century theory that has since been greatly modified.
Click to expand...
That argument rings familiar :roll_eyes::
As a rule-of-thumb, a source criticising “Socialism” is not criticising modern socialism theory, but is criticising a strawman version of a nineteenth century theory that has since been greatly modified.
Click to expand...
 
Buzzard3 said:
According to the fossil record, literally hundreds of animals appear in the Cambrian era without any evidence of evolutionary ancestors. This fact doesn’t support Darwinism.

Jesus raised a dead man from the dead, demonstrating that God could have created Adam from animate matter, just as Genesis 2:7 describes. No evolution necessary.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the fish and loaves and the water into wine popped into existence… no evolution needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top