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.
Edgar said:
40.png
Techno2000:
Is that you Glark ?
Click to expand...
Glark’s views on the history of the world were significantly different to Edgar’s - I think Glark believed in the “Gap theory” and that the “six days” were literal and referred to Creation Part II, or some such thing. Edgar, on the other hand, doesn’t subscribe to those particular views.

I heard Glark was captured and sentenced to an indefinite period of “re-education” in a concentration camp run by evo’ fanatics. Poor Glark.
Click to expand...
Lol…
 
buffalo said:
(Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,”
Click to expand...
Last week, my grandson’s homework comprised him making a family tree. Only back three generations to his great grandfathers, but he enjoyed doing it. We’re overseas at the moment but it was neat catching up in a video call and telling him about my father. He thought it was cool that half his family were from the other side of the planet.

When people ask - what’s the first thing you’d save if there was a fire, I always say the family bible. It has names in it that go back to the late 1700’s. It really gives you a sense of where you came from. A sense of perspective. A feeling that you aren’t just that specific generation, but are one of a line that stretches back…well, who knows how far the boy might want to go.

I’m looking forward to helping him if he wants to do it. Truth be told, I’m quite excited about it. ‘This was written by your great great great grandmother.’ How cool.

And meanwhile, in the Buffalo and Ed households: ‘Huh, I don’t know why you’re bothering with that, kid. You won’t make any money doing it’.

That honestly strikes me as quite sad.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
The jaw bones of a reptile evolved into the inner-ear bones of a mammal - evolution science is hilarious!
Click to expand...
No, ed. Religiously based attempts to ignore science are hilarious. See reptile-mammal transition for the scientific evidence from actual fossils of the transition between the reptilian jaw and the mammalian jaw, complete with a transitional Therapsid with two jaw joints; right on the cusp of the transition.

In science the evidence wins, and in this case science has the evidence. I suspect that your sources lied to you by omission ed; they failed to inform you of the existence of the evidence. You lose this one ed, I’m afraid.
 
IWantGod said:
Nobody is crying intelligent design when it comes to those things
Click to expand...
Imagine the atheist-ridden scientific community espousing Intelligent Design! That’ll be the day! You have to go “underground” to find scientific support for ID.
there is no reason to count this against the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
The Darwinian explanation for the fossil record is just plain poor science. It’s a simplistic, nineteenth-century idea that persists only because puny scientific materialism can’t come up with anything better … plus there is no shortage of atheists in the scientific community who have no choice but to keep pushing that rickety old barrow.
What has the devil got to do with evolution? What has atheism got to do with evolution for that matter?
Click to expand...
So you see junk science that has zero practical use, that says life doesn’t need God, that is militantly preached at every intellectual and educational level as scientific fact … and yet you haven’t heard any alarm bells ringing? If you haven’t smelt a rat by now, you never will. (This reminds me of the blind Catholics who support feminism like it’s some holy crusade, but seem blissfully unaware that it was “women’s liberation” that single-handedly turned a trickle of abortions into a global flood.)
 
Edgar said:
You have to go “underground” to find scientific support for ID.
Click to expand...
As you do for scientific support for crop circles, alien abductions, a flat earth, a young earth, Bigfoot…the list goes on, Edgar. But ID is slightly different. It is only proposed by fundamentalist Christians.

Who is the D in ID, Eddie?
 
There were no blind Catholics, just deceived and lied to Catholics. Catholics wanted the truth when radical feminists appeared. They did not get it.
 
A contribution is a contribution. It’s as if you think I’m only posting for you… 🙂
 
How do know so much about Nazis?
Bradskii said:
Last week, my grandson’s homework comprised him making a family tree. Only back three generations to his great grandfathers, but he enjoyed doing it. We’re overseas at the moment but it was neat catching up in a video call and telling him about my father. He thought it was cool that half his family were from the other side of the planet.
Click to expand...
When Jerry Coyne said “evolution” he may have been referring to the theory of common descent - for which there are no “commercial applications” and no practical use in applied biology.
Bradskii said:
As you do for scientific support for crop circles, alien abductions, a flat earth, a young earth, Bigfoot…the list goes on, Edgar. But ID is slightly different. It is only proposed by fundamentalist Christians.
Click to expand...
Some the scientists that support ID are world-class. Check out evolutionnews.org to see what I mean (it’s not YEC).
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
See [reptile-mammal transition]29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1) for the scientific evidence from actual fossils of the transition between the reptilian jaw and the mammalian jaw, complete with a transitional Therapsid with two jaw joints; right on the cusp of the transition.
Click to expand...
Even if this transition is legitimate (ie, the fossil evidence is not another misleading product of evo’ fantasy and wishful thinking), how do you confirm that Darwinian evolution is responsible for it? The answer is, you can’t – all you can say is, scientific materialism can’t find a better explanation for it than biological evolution. The transition could the result of God performing miracles or aliens having fun with genetic engineering – there is no way of confirming or testing any of these three explanations.

Furthermore, in order for your Darwinian explanation to qualify as science, you need to explain how each mutation in the process conferred a survival advantage to the organism. Then having done that, you need to explain how each of these hypotheses can be tested – which of course, is impossible. Without such explanations and subsequent tests, all you have is a pseudo-scientific “evolution done it” story that is only marginally more scientific that the “God done it” story or the “aliens done it” story.

Cone to think of it, an “aliens done it” theory makes more scientific sense than the “evolution done it” theory.
In science the evidence wins
Click to expand...
A theory with evidence is still just a theory … which falls a long short in the credibility stakes than a theory that can actually be tested.
 
Last edited:
Edgar said:
Furthermore, in order for your Darwinian explanation to qualify as science, you need to explain how each mutation in the process conferred a survival advantage to the organism.
Click to expand...
Yeah…rossum seems to be good at math… I wonder if he could calculate how many survival advantages/environmental changes/transitional stages it took, to go from 1 Microb cell to the millions and millions of plant and animals we have today. 🤔
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
rossum seems to be good at math… I wonder if he could calculate how many survival advantages/environmental changes/transitional stages it took, to go from 1 Microb cell to the millions and millions of plant and animals we have today
Click to expand...
In other words, evolutionists have a lot of explaining to do! Darwinism is gigantic balloon of hot air - it’s quick to make all sorts of claims, but is very slow at backing them up scientific arguments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top