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.
It’s only “nonsense” because you somehow feel threatened by it.

I think it fits perfectly with the notion that we were called forth from the dirt which is presented in Genesis.
 
Not really. As I’ve mentioned, we’ve found scores of T Rexes.

If what you say is right, we should find fossils of currently extant species all the time. But barring a few rarities like crocs, a few fish or a ginko tree, we virtually never do.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
The theory is no more anti-God than my Ford repair manual, my old math textbooks or any other non-religious source of information.
Click to expand...
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” - William Provine.
 
Last edited:
Is there a reason why I should care what William Provine says about the subject?

Among the vast, vast majority of the college educated, the ToE is agreed as the best explanation for how life today came to be.

Let’s not hide behind quotes. Let’s use our faculties.
 
Vonsalza said:
The theory is important because answers to big questions are important. Knowledge is important
Click to expand...
Knowledge is not theories or beliefs, but facts. I didn’t know it is a fact that all life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of biological evolution.
 
Last edited:
Its not a fact, per se. It’s just the most reputable and credible theory for it.
 
Vonsalza said:
Not really. As I’ve mentioned, we’ve found scores of T Rexes.

If what you say is right, we should find fossils of currently extant species all the time. But barring a few rarities like crocs, a few fish or a ginko tree, we virtually never do.
Click to expand...
All found human fossils could fit on a 4’ x 8’ table.

Rapid burial is what forms fossils. How often do we have events that cause such rapid burial?
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Among the vast, vast majority of the college educated, the ToE is agreed as the best explanation for how life today came to be.
Click to expand...
College indoctrinated might be a better term. And this was willingly paid for. What a master coup.
 
Vonsalza said:
We’ve found many Tyrannosaurs in the fossil record, but no people. 🤔
Click to expand...
Vonsalza said:
Could you please answer the question I’ve asked three times now?

Why aren’t there fossils of the over 99.9% of species extant on the earth now, including humans?

We’ve found many Tyrannosaurs in the fossil record, but no people. 🤔
Click to expand...
But, we also didn’t find any transitional fossils stages that led up to Tyrannosaurs .
 
To be sure, all human fossils in history could fit on the head of a pin - there aren’t any.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Its not a fact, per se. It’s just the most reputable and credible theory for it.
Click to expand...
The modern synthesis is pretty much gone and the top evo’s know it. It is slow to percolate down to the colleges, etc.
Click to expand...
Could you explain this in more depth, please?
 
If you’re not going to further clarify when you refer to something cryptic like modern synthesis then you should refrain from posting it in the first place
 
Techno2000 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
Techno2000:
But, we also didn’t find any transitional fossils stages that led up to Tyrannosaurs .
Click to expand...
Yes we have. Timurlengia Eutoica is one example.
Click to expand...
That’s evolutionist interpretation of these bones.
Click to expand...
Hey, you asked for a transitional stage toward becoming the T-Rex and an exact specimen was provided.

At this point, the rational discussion between us is likely over.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
something cryptic like modern synthesis
Click to expand...
What? You are arguing for evo and do not know what the modern synthesis is? My my…

IDvolution.org: Royal Society Meeting - Modern Synthesis is Broken
Click to expand...
Upon a little clicking around, it appears the idea was replaced/revised by the scientific community around the time I was born. So as it was a discarded idea and thus never taught in the many classrooms I’ve occupied, I’m not familiar with it.

So apologies for not being aware of the subtopic within evolution that the ID sources you provide critiques, despite being replaced nearly 4 decades ago. I’m still not sure your rebuttal is relevant though, on that basis.

And as a caution, that’s the great strength of adopting a current scientific position - science is not afraid of changing the position if new information comes to light. That’s the point of science. No need to plant an ideological flag and still attempt to sadly defend it when new research passes it by.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top