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.
People make fake ming vases in China too, does that mean there’s no such thing as a real one? Absurd.
 
Please point to the post made that said God had to use evolution to do anything. That is like saying “Did God have to use Mary to create Jesus? No, therefore God didn’t use Mary to give birth to Jesus.”
 
ProdglArchitect said:
… Seriously dude… just… seriously…

Nothing ever appears halfway between becoming a new species, mainly because we can’t see the future of each individual species.

Take humans, overall we’re taller than we used to be. We only know that now because we can look back and see what we were. Each time a tall person was born they weren’t the next step in human developments towards being overall taller, they were just a slightly taller guy.

The same is true for everything. If a tree grows with slightly wider leaves, we can’t look at that now and say that this tree is halfway along it’s development to becoming a super-broad leaf tree. We just see a tree with slightly broader leaves. It’s not until enough change has happened that we’ll be able to see the developmental process.

If a fish has slightly darker scales than it’s parents, it’s not on it’s way to becoming a new species of new, completely-nocturnal predator, using the dark to it’s advantage. It’s just a slightly darker fish.

Again, you’re asking for irrational things.

But whatever, I’m done. It’s obvious you’re not interested in being rational. You’ve adopted the Fundamentalist mindset for this particular discussion, but it’s not all that important, so whatever. I’m done trying to inject evidence into your understanding; you’re obviously not interested.

Now, if you’re talking in terms of the whole fossil record, then yeah Archaeopteryx is a good example, as Alreju noted. There are also all the hominid species, that’s a fairly comprehensive record.
Click to expand...
I said the evolutionary clock already started billions of years ago…think about it.
 
I didn’t claim that God is a sicnetific concept… did you read my post?

I said it teaches us about how God operates. Everything we learn teaches us about that… I don’t see the problem…

Whatever, I’m out. This is a fruitless discussion, so I’m not going to spend any more time on it. I still just don’t understand the problem you guys have with evolution. It literally makes no sense to me.
edwest said:
He created the universe out of nothing.
Click to expand...
No one is refuting that. At least, none of the Christians here are. You don’t seem able to distinguish between the scientific principle of evolution, and the misapplication of that principle for atheistic ideals. They’re two very different things.
 
Last edited:
I did think about it, and addressed the potential for you accepting the whole fossil record in that last post.

Archeopteryx is an excellent example of an intermediate species, with several reptilian features, along with the beginnings of features from avian species.

It fits your criteria perfectly.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
… Seriously dude… just… seriously…

Nothing ever appears halfway between becoming a new species, mainly because we can’t see the future of each individual species.
Click to expand...
“another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between."

“If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said."

 
Last edited:
And did you even read this article?

Its like you people cherry pick a single phrase or headline that you think supports your case when the entire article argues against what you think it does.
 
“Archaeopteryx cant be a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and modern birds. See, look at this article that says archaeopteryx isn’t the ‘first bird’ because we’ve found a bunch of other transitional creatures between modern birds and dinosaurs.”
 
Atreju said:
Its like you people cherry pick a single phrase or headline that you think supports your case when the entire article argues against what you think it does.
Click to expand...
It is like you people cherry pick and ignore the points that go against evo.
 
Apparently, a few thousand years after Genesis was written for primitve humans, they were “ready” for the science of astronomy. So there must have been a very rapid evolution of the human brain in that time interval.

Smart enough to build the Great Pyramids but not smart enough to understand basic science?
 
Last edited:
Atreju said:
Ed this still doesnt say the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact I think it bolsters my point because if the clear undeniable meaning of scripture was that the earth is 6000 years old the church would surely clarify that and end all doubt. The church has left that question to science and physical evidence, which all point to a universe billions of years old.
Click to expand...
I accept the science that suggests life on earth is billions of years old and that the fossil record shows some kind of progression from relatively simple organisms to the Cambrian explosion to the life-forms of today. But I also believe that neither the Bible no science can inform as to exactly what was responsible for the history of life. It’s a mystery that will never be solved.
 
The Japanese attempted to build a pyramid and failed. Apparently, modern equipment was not enough to make a relatively small replica.

Loading…

www.answers.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top