Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[DogmaHunter]

again: its just a speciation. why to call it evolution?

Because that's what evolution is.....

The gradual changing of species over generations which inevitably leads to speciation events.

the design model can also exlain speciation,

The design model can't explain anything, all it does is assert.

since its basically still the same creature and belong to the same family.

And humans and fish are both still vertebrates and eukaryotes.
And humans and chimps are both still vertebrates, eukaryotes, tetrapods, mammals, primates,...

It's called "nested hierarchy".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Have I not made it plain that I'm one of the biggest dot connectors around?

What's this, if not a dot connector?

1. Bible says X, science says X = go with X
2. Bible says X, science says Y = go with X
3. Bible says Ø, science says Y = go with Y
4. Bible says Ø, science says Ø = speculate

Want a list that contains some of my more spectacular connections?

Setting the Record Straight

dot connecting in terms of ongoing investigation to solve something based on datapoints, is not "speculating".

 

[inquiring mind]

So when you draw a line of one dot of fish in pre-devonian rock to another dot of tetrapod life in late devonian rock, then around the middle of that line, you'ld expect dots of fish/tetrapod hybrids.

I think the problem is more that you are unwilling to look at their findings.
You have been presented with this fish/tetrapod (tiktaalik) example i-dunno-how-many-times and have been asked to explain how it is possible that paleontologists are able to make such accurate predictions (locality, rock type and anatomical feature set, of previously unknown species) based on an idea that is apparantly as false as it gets (according to creationists).

But, wouldn't this be like drawing a straight line between Trenton, NJ and Fairbanks, Alaska (connecting the two dots) and saying you expect to find a town about half way along that line that is rural and much smaller? And then when you do find such a town (like with the projected Tiktaalik find) that is intersected by that straight line you incorrectly proclaim it's on the actual highway route to Fairbanks.

 

[46AND2]

You just told me the Septuagint used the term "young woman" over "virgin;" and then you ask me if they "relied heavily on the Septuagint"?

No I didn't. The Septuagint uses virgin. It's the Hebrew which uses young woman.

Is this a trick question?

No.

I'll say NO, they did not.



Academia relies on it, but I think it's kinda obvious that the KJ translators did not.

I didn't ask about the KJ translators....I asked about the AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS. What version of the Old Testament do you suppose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used?

 

[AV1611VET]

What version of the Old Testament do you suppose Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used?

The right one.

 

[46AND2]

The right one.

So basically, you have no idea because of your KJV authority belief; you've never bothered to research into how the Bible was used, copied, translated, transliterated and read in antiquity?

 

[AV1611VET]

So basically, you have no idea because of your KJV authority belief; you've never bothered to research into how the Bible was used, copied, translated, transliterated and read in antiquity?

I don't really care how It was done.

God did it, so I know It is perfect.

Where the King James Bible differs from the Hebrew, the Hebrew is wrong.

Same goes if the KJB differs from the Septuagint, Masoretic Text, Textus Receptus, Vulgate, or Betty Crocker's Cookbook.

Whatever it was the Gospel writers used, if the KJB quotes them, then they used what they were supposed to have used.

If Mary was just a "young woman," then the KJB would not have used the word "virgin."

 

[Astrophile]

But, wouldn't this be like drawing a straight line between Trenton, NJ and Fairbanks, Alaska (connecting the two dots) and saying you expect to find a town about half way along that line that is rural and much smaller? And then when you do find such a town (like with the projected Tiktaalik find) that is intersected by that straight line you incorrectly proclaim it's on the actual highway route to Fairbanks.

I think that it's more like drawing a straight line between York and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, saying that one expects to find another town about half-way along that line, and then, when one finds such a town (such as Darlington) proclaiming (correctly) that it is on the actual railway line between York and Newcastle.

However, the analogy is false, since there is no absolute necessity for a railway line to exist between York and Newcastle (or between Trenton and Fairbanks), whereas the tetrapods of the Late Devonian period must have had Early Devonian and Silurian ancestors; moreover, since there are no fossil Silurian tetrapods, the Silurian ancestors of the Late Devonian tetrapods must have been animals that were not tetrapods. It follows then that there must have been Early Devonian animals that were descended from Silurian non-tetrapods and were the ancestors of Late Devonian tetrapods.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Today is the 7th. The 5th came and went.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

But, wouldn't this be like drawing a straight line between Trenton, NJ and Fairbanks, Alaska (connecting the two dots) and saying you expect to find a town about half way along that line that is rural and much smaller?

No. Those lines don't imply a progression from dot one to the next and as such, would not make predictions about still undiscovered dots along that line.

And then when you do find such a town (like with the projected Tiktaalik find) that is intersected by that straight line you incorrectly proclaim it's on the actual highway route to Fairbanks.

It's almost like you try to misunderstand all this on purpose.

 

[inquiring mind]

However, the analogy is false, since there is no absolute necessity for a railway line to exist between York and Newcastle (or between Trenton and Fairbanks), whereas the tetrapods of the Late Devonian period must have had Early Devonian and Silurian ancestors; moreover, since there are no fossil Silurian tetrapods, the Silurian ancestors of the Late Devonian tetrapods must have been animals that were not tetrapods. It follows then that there must have been Early Devonian animals that were descended from Silurian non-tetrapods and were the ancestors of Late Devonian tetrapods.

Your reasoning is based entirely on ‘common ancestry & descent.’ I know, there is an enormous amount of evidence of this in all life on Earth. I don’t deny that the make-up of everything on earth has such commonality, and apparently cosmological and geological ages are very old, or appear so anyway, and I have no problem with that. But, I believe we were created by God, according to His ways and in His time-space continuum, neither of which we can begin to understand or detail.

The first few chapters of the Genesis account (Creation) cannot be placed on a timeline that we can comprehend either. That lack of understanding on our part in no way negates the Bible as being His protected Word for us. To me, it’s not a question of ‘should the Bible be taken literally,’ for the Bible is the truth as God chose for it to be delivered to us. Our difficulty comes when we fail to have faith in it and try to apply man’s understanding, including macro evolutionary progression, to God’s ways. And, even in your macro evolutionary world, the idea is false reasoning simply because there’s not enough fossil evidence to confirm it. The dots are just too far apart to connect. Basically, I believe God’s work in regard to our creation is, and will remain, a mystery to us.

It's almost like you try to misunderstand all this on purpose.

I prefer the term 'disagree.'

 

[AV1611VET]

It's almost like you try to misunderstand all this on purpose.

I prefer the term 'disagree.'

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip


I prefer the term 'disagree.'

One cannot really ”disagree” on physical reality. Your position is quite simply in the wrong.

 

[Aman777]

Basically, I believe God’s work in regard to our creation is, and will remain, a mystery to us.

Not so, since the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, will lead all flesh into all Truth in the last days before Jesus returns.

Jhn 16:13 Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth:

Act 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of My Spirit (Spirit of Truth) upon all flesh:

All flesh includes atheists, agnostics and all unbelievers. We know we are in the last days because God is currently pouring out His Truth through the discoveries of Science. Here's an example of Scripture telling us God's Truth more than 3k years ago, and what Science discovered and announced only two years ago.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly,
Behold LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of Life on Earth ...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life.. Jul 26, 2016

God's Truth agrees in every way with every discovery of Science and History IF you understand Genesis. God bless you

 

[inquiring mind]

One cannot really ”disagree” on physical reality. Your position is quite simply in the wrong.

If physical reality shows up (fossils), I would be confused somewhat.

 

[VirOptimus]

If physical reality shows up (fossils), I would be confused somewhat.

?

 

[inquiring mind]

One cannot really ”disagree” on physical reality.

What do you mean... are you saying physical evidence (fossils) exist that confirm macro evolution?

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you mean... are you saying physical evidence (fossils) exist that confirm macro evolution?

The ToE is incredibly well-supported by data and facts, including fossils, dna, morphology etc.

 

[inquiring mind]

The ToE is incredibly well-supported by data and facts, including fossils, dna, morphology etc.

I don't think a sufficient fossil (physical) record is anywhere close. Morphology is questionable. But, as for many of the other things you refer to, I've already stated:

I know, there is an enormous amount of evidence of this in all life on Earth. I don’t deny that the make-up of everything on earth has such commonality, and apparently cosmological and geological ages are very old, or appear so anyway, and I have no problem with that. But, I believe we were created by God, according to His ways and in His time-space continuum, neither of which we can begin to understand or detail.

 

[inquiring mind]

?

I was simply saying that if a convincing fossil progression showed up in the record, I would be confused because I don't believe one exists. I would be confused, but that would not change my mind about God's Creation.