Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rossum,

You said, “There are many religions which will disagree with you. You cannot just assume that the Abrahamic religions are correct.”
MY RESPONSE: Agreed. I just want to stay on topic and not include that issue in the mix. Maybe I will deal with that in another thread.

You said: “Which is a very big problem if you want to have an impact on science.”
MY RESPONSE: It is no bigger than the evolutionist’s problem. Evolutionists do not have direct evidence of evolution either. They also rely on the testimony of fossil records, which the creationists also do.

You said: “We also see gradual emergence of new species…”
MY RESPONSE: The scanty evidence for gradual emergence has not outweighed the evidence for stasis. The overwhelming stabiity of past and existing species in the fossil records coupled by rapid development giving rise to new species is still a big problem for the evolutionist, including Gould.
 
Dear LeafByNiggle,

You said, “Because you have not given evidence of an experiment or a predicted outcome that can confirm the theory.”
MY RESPONSE: Sure we have. The argument is this: If direct creation of species happened in the past, then (here now is the prediction) we should be able to find the sudden appearance of such species in the fossil records. The sudden appearance of the new species is indeed found in the fossil records (this is the verification). Therefore, direct creation of the species probably happened. More verification was made not only with more species, but with large phylas and classes of animals. This just makes the creation model more and more probable. So, you see, the theory of direct creation is also a viable scientific theory.
 
The curtain of millions of years obscures the truth. I looked at a close-up photo of an insect trapped in amber. It just happened to have compound eyes, wings and legs. Now, in order to function in an environment, it has to find food and water, it has to be able to identify food from not food, and interact not with a lab but a dynamic and hostile, at times, environment. In other words, it is born into the world and has to know how to interact with it. Design - purpose-based design - makes sense. How does its sensory organs and brain determine what is what?
 
edwest211 said:
The curtain of millions of years obscures the truth. I looked at a close-up photo of an insect trapped in amber. It just happened to have compound eyes, wings and legs. Now, in order to function in an environment, it has to find food and water, it has to be able to identify food from not food, and interact not with a lab but a dynamic and hostile, at times, environment. In other words, it is born into the world and has to know how to interact with it. Design - purpose-based design - makes sense. How does its sensory organs and brain determine what is what?
Click to expand...
You are talking about goal direction. But that is irrelevant. The theory of evolution is not a theory about goal direction, it’s a theory about species. Even if goal direction could not exist without God, it would still be the case that these functions operate in conjunction with natural processes.
 
Last edited:
“natural processes” Highly complex processes that are turning out to be more and more complex as the days pass. Too complex for blind, unguided chance to hit a goal. Design works.
 
rom said:
Dear LeafByNiggle,

You said, “Because you have not given evidence of an experiment or a predicted outcome that can confirm the theory.”
MY RESPONSE: Sure we have. The argument is this: If direct creation of species happened in the past, then (here now is the prediction) we should be able to find the sudden appearance of such species in the fossil records. The sudden appearance of the new species is indeed found in the fossil records (this is the verification). Therefore, direct creation of the species probably happened. More verification was made not only with more species, but with large phylas and classes of animals. This just makes the creation model more and more probable. So, you see, the theory of direct creation is also a viable scientific theory.
Click to expand...
To some extent this is ex post facto reasoning. Creationists were already using the apparent sudden appearance of species in the fossil record to form their theory. All you did was go out and find more sudden appearances. This does not independently confirm the theory. It just says that one observed fact - the apparent sudden appearance of species - could be observed again. I say “apparent” because the fossil record does not show a fine enough time scale to disqualify evolution from producing those same uneven appearance of morphology. Sometimes all it takes is one freaky storm to carry a species on piece of driftwood to a new environment where it finds itself with no predators and able to evolve quickly in a way that was not possible in its previous environment. This would also produce an apparent sudden appearance of that species in that place. So sudden and individual divine creation is not the only scientific theory that explains the evidence. What other experiments can you perform, like, today, on currently-living organisms? We have some that produce significant changes consistent with evolution. What have you got?
 
What do I have?

A bunch of currently extant animals that have no fossil records and a bunch of fossilized animals that aren’t on the earth anymore.

Evolution is just the best explanation for that so far. No poof-ing required.
 
Last edited:
No one is able to tell me about a transitional fossil they have seen in real life. That’s hilarious that no one can do that!!!. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Design is stupid.

Design doesn’t explain why whales have vestigial hip bones, why we have appendixes, why ectopic pregnancies are a thing, why the tube we breathe out of and the tube where we swallow water are in roughly the same location.

Design is stupid. Evolution is objectively better and doesn’t require the death of God, which is what the debate is really about for creationists.
 
Literally every fossil you’ve ever seen and every living thing present today is transitional.

You just don’t know it. Which is fine, but it should limit your enthusiasm to voice an opinion.
 
Evolution: Blind chance.
Intelligent Design: Purposeful design immediately suitable to living on earth.
 
Mutation is blind chance, but it’s not evolution in and of itself.
The word encompasses much more.
 
Vonsalza said:
Literally every fossil you’ve ever seen and every living thing present today is transitional.

You just don’t know it. Which is fine, but it should limit your enthusiasm to voice an opinion.
Click to expand...
No that is not correct. Transitional fossils are the fossils that are the transitions between different animals.
 
Ever design something mechanical, like an airplane? It doesn’t have any ability that’s not built into it. The same with life.
 
Yep. Just like YOU are the transition between humans a million years in the past and a million years in the future.

Easier to grasp, hopefully?
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Yep. Just like YOU are the transition between humans a million years in the past and a million years in the future.

Easier to grasp, hopefully?
Click to expand...
Ok never mind you do not seem to understand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top