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.
Buzzard3 said:
Exhibit A:. The Cambrian explosion.
Click to expand...
As I said, that took between 5 and 15 million years. How is that evidence for creationism rather than evolution?

Whales appear suddenly in the fossil record. Was that evidence of creation? No, it was evidence that we hadn’t yet found their land based ancestors. Then palaeontologists dug a new site in Pakistan in the 1980s. See Pakicetus and others. Now whales are no longer ‘sudden’ since we have their ancestors.

Absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence. You are resting your claim of creationism on insecure foundations. Genesis says “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Evolution describes that bringing forth.
 
rossum said:
Genesis says “Let the waters bring forth…” and “Let the earth bring forth…” Evolution describes that bringing forth.
Click to expand...
It’s nice to see @rossum making an effort to affirm Genesis. 🙂

Here’s the corresponding quote from Genesis.
Genesis 1:24–25 (NABRE): Then God said: Let the earth bring forth every kind of living creature: tame animals, crawling things, and every kind of wild animal. And so it happened: God made every kind of wild animal, every kind of tame animal, and every kind of thing that crawls on the ground. God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...
God said “let the earth bring forth”. Then, God brought it forth supernaturally. God saw that it was good (already good). God didn’t say anything like: “it will be good in the future after natural processes work on it for millions years”.
 
stoplooklisten said:
God said “let the earth bring forth”. Then, God brought it forth supernaturally.
Click to expand...
Or in a different interpretation: God said “let the earth bring forth”. Then, God brought it forth naturally through the natural rules that God had made.

The Catholic Church allows for a Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis as to how physical bodies are made.

If God made the rules, then God was also fully aware of the impact of those rules in future.
 
buffalo said:
Nope, not from a universal common ancestor. From different archetypes, yes.
Click to expand...
How many of these archetypes would there have been? And what period of prehistory are we talking about? And as all the new species formed by lineage splitting, did each new species lose functionality, right down to today’s species? Can we see evidence of this continuous loss of functionality?
 
PickyPicky said:
How many of these archetypes would there have been? And what period of prehistory are we talking about? And as all the new species formed by lineage splitting, did each new species lose functionality, right down to today’s species? Can we see evidence of this continuous loss of functionality?
Click to expand...
The tree of life has fallen and science is now looking at a tangled bush. As we fine tune our genetic search capabilities we will find out. Each time a lineage splits some information is lost, resulting in a more brittle organism less capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Even temporary short term benefits do not stop this.
 
buffalo said:
The tree of life has fallen and science is now looking at a tangled bush
Click to expand...
Yes. Old news. A tangled bush of evolutionary descent. Now: when did these archetypes appear, and how many of them were there? And can we see evidence of this continuous loss of functionality in the fossil record of increasing complexity?
 
Last edited:
buffalo said:
The tree of life has fallen and science is now looking at a tangled bush. As we fine tune our genetic search capabilities we will find out. Each time a lineage splits some information is lost, resulting in a more brittle organism less capable of adapting to changing environmental conditions. Even temporary short term benefits do not stop this.
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the question: How many of these archetypes would there have been? And what period of prehistory are we talking about?

You have also failed to answer my question about marsupial/kangaroo/wombat/koala archetypes.

An inability to answer relevant question is a sign of a hypothesis that needs a lot more work done on it before is is ready for public release.

For example, if there is only one of your archetypes you will have much less disagreement with the current theory than if you claim 1,000 or whatever archetypes. You need to establish a number of archetypes and provide supporting evidence for that number.
 
rossum said:
The Catholic Church allows for a Theistic Evolution interpretation of Genesis as to how physical bodies are made.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think that the Catholic Church doesn’t want a repeat of the situation with Galileo and being on the wrong side if and when new information becomes available.

However, the consensus of multiple sources in the Catholic Tradition including the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, the Fourth Lateran Council, St Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Vatican I, Pope Leo XIII, Humani Generis and more have been consistently to affirm Genesis including completed Creation in six-days.
 
rossum said:
Whales appear suddenly in the fossil record. Was that evidence of creation? No, it was evidence that we hadn’t yet found their land based ancestors. Then palaeontologists dug a new site in Pakistan in the 1980s. See Pakicetus and others. Now whales are no longer ‘sudden’ since we have their ancestors.
Click to expand...
“Pakicetus” from Pakistan appears fairly late in the Geologic column. It is part of the Cenozoic Eocene and thus later than the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic. That gives it less time to “evolve” It seems strange to say that it’s related to the whale. It’s a land animal found in a localized, river basin deposit far away from an ocean. If it’s going to “evolve” into a whale, it’s got a long way to go and comparatively little geologic time to do so.

See Wikipedia image link of artist’s rendering: Pakicetidae - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
stoplooklisten said:
40.png
rossum:
Whales appear suddenly in the fossil record. Was that evidence of creation? No, it was evidence that we hadn’t yet found their land based ancestors. Then palaeontologists dug a new site in Pakistan in the 1980s. See Pakicetus and others. Now whales are no longer ‘sudden’ since we have their ancestors.
Click to expand...
“Pakicetus” from Pakistan appears fairly late in the Geologic column. It is part of the Cenozoic Eocene and thus later than the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic. That gives it less time to “evolve” It seems strange to say that it’s related to the whale. It’s a land animal found in a localized, river basin deposit far away from an ocean. If it’s going to “evolve” into a whale, it’s got a long way to go and comparatively little geologic time to do so.

See Wikipedia image link of artist’s rendering: Pakicetidae - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
Yes, the whole scam of Darwinism is based on “artistic renderings.”
 
I’]ll do that, as best i can. It might take awhile for me to sort thru it tho.
 
stoplooklisten said:
God said “let the earth bring forth”. Then, God brought it forth supernaturally. God saw that it was good (already good). God didn’t say anything like: “it will be good in the future after natural processes work on it for millions years”.
Click to expand...
God old the earth to bring forth life and it did - coz the earth has ears and intelligence and can put molecules together to make organisms. Who knew inanimate matter was so smart? Humans can’t make organisms but rocks and water can!
 
rossum said:
40.png
stoplooklisten:
Then, God brought it forth supernaturally.
Click to expand...
Or in a different interpretation: God said “let the earth bring forth”. Then, God brought it forth naturally through the natural rules that God had made
Click to expand...
Therein lies a contradiction: if God used nature to bring forth life, that is not a natural process.
Furthermore, it is then a supernatural process that science cannot explain.
 
stoplooklisten said:
However, the consensus of multiple sources in the Catholic Tradition including the early Church Fathers, St. Augustine, … have been consistently to affirm Genesis including completed Creation in six-days.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are in error here. Augustine was a proponent of instantaneous creation in a lot less than 144 hours. A minority position to be sure, but one which more accurately reflects the Big Bang.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top