Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[AV1611VET]

All of it. It's all a crock.

Fair enough.

Let's test and see if what I said was correct.

I submit rabbits in the Precambrian as a potential problem to the theory of evolution.

Show me that's a "crock."

And before you can't, q.v. from AI Overview, please:

Yes, finding rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era would be extremely problematic for the theory of evolution, as rabbits are mammals, and the theory of evolution predicts that mammals evolved much later, after the Precambrian eon.

Followed by this, from Wikipedia:

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, though if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

So if you think I submitting rabbits in the Precambrian being a "no problem" to the theory of evolution is a crock, I say you're wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough.

Let's test and see if what I said was correct.

I submit rabbits in the Precambrian as a potential problem to the theory of evolution.

Show me that's a "crock."

And before you can't, q.v. from AI Overview, please:

Yes, finding rabbit fossils in the Precambrian era would be extremely problematic for the theory of evolution, as rabbits are mammals, and the theory of evolution predicts that mammals evolved much later, after the Precambrian eon.

Followed by this, from Wikipedia:

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, though if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

So if you think I submitting rabbits in the Precambrian being a "no problem" to the theory of evolution is a crock, I say you're wrong.

But finding rabbits in Precambrian rocks would be a major blow to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, thus leading it to be majorly redone and rethought and retooled.

And did you REALLY need AI Overview to point out that mammals came after the Precambrian? Really?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Who cares though?

At the end of the day, AV is just mad that his reading of the Bible isn't taken as scripture by anyone but him. And it shows, plain and clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

But finding rabbits in Precambrian rocks would be a major blow to the modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, thus leading it to be majorly redone and rethought and retooled.

Thanks for the QED.

As I said, the theory of evolution comes with a dynamite crisis management program.

It can handle any legitimate scenario thrown at it.

Oh ... don't get me wrong.

They may have to go back to the drawing board to redesign their paradigms; shift boundaries, crunch numbers, move decimal places or whatever -- but I submit they can.

And in so doing, make the theory of evolution even stronger and stronger until ... you know ... the big day.

And did you REALLY need AI Overview to point out that mammals came after the Precambrian? Really?

No.

I needed AI Overview to point out that rabbits would be "extremely problematic," then contradicted AI Overview with Wikipedia to show it would be "doubtful."

 

[AV1611VET]

At the end of the day, AV is just mad ...

I'm mad all day.

I'm Alfred E Neuman!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

The self-correcting nature of science in the face of new evidence and ideas is not the negative you claim it to be.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm mad all day.

Mad as a hatter and a whole lot less funny and interesting.

So let's use salty, aggrieved, annoyed, irritated, infuriated, irate, to show how you feel that your reading of the Bible isn't taken as scripture by anyone but yourself. And it shows, plain and clear.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mad as a hatter and a whole lot less funny and interesting.

So let's use salty, aggrieved, annoyed, irritated, infuriated, irate, to show how you feel that your reading of the Bible isn't taken as scripture by anyone but yourself. And it shows, plain and clear.

I (and other non-Christians like me, here and elsewhere) have be accused of being "literalists" because I want to understand the author's original meaning to the original audience instead of applying their post hoc theological lens to a text.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I (and other non-Christians like me, here and elsewhere) have be accused of being "literalists" because I want to understand the author's original meaning to the original audience instead of applying their post hoc theological lens to a text.

It's even worse than that: in wanting to be a true to word literalist, AV has to take SCIENCE and mesh it with the Bible in such a way that it renders both moot and pointless.

 

[AV1611VET]

The self-correcting nature of science in the face of new evidence and ideas is not the negative you claim it to be.

You probably missed the fact that I was actually agreeing with you, when you asked the question:

"We're never going to get a good, singular example for why evolution is a theory in crisis, are we?"

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You probably missed the fact that I was actually agreeing with you, when you asked the question:

"We're never going to get a good, singular example for why evolution is a theory in crisis, are we?"

Yes, but you were approaching it from an insincere position by saying that it's a bad thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's even worse than that: in wanting to be a true to word literalist, AV has to take SCIENCE and mesh it with the Bible in such a way that it renders both moot and pointless.

I don't recall quoting any Scripture during this exchange.

Literal or otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's even worse than that: in wanting to be a true to word literalist, AV has to take SCIENCE and mesh it with the Bible in such a way that it renders both moot and pointless.

The "Creationists" (then "Creation Scientists") create these elaborate science-like narratives to jam between the lines of Genesis so that modern geology, biology, and even astronomy can jammed into the text as if it were real. Creating this extra-biblical version of "creation" that is pushed as the proper religious form by people like Ken Ham. It creates nonsense like post-flood hyperevolution, continental rearrangement during the flood, and dinosaurs on the ark. Not a single one of those things is actual in the Bible.

Where AV comes in is that he has his own *personal* version of this that doesn't match any of the organizations, denominations, or the text itself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't recall quoting any Scripture during this exchange.

Literal or otherwise.

No, you've not done it here. But on all the other threads you've taken part on, you've shown it plain and clear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but you were approaching it from an insincere position by saying that it's a bad thing.

I'll give you the benefit of this post, that you're not calling me "insincere."

I feel I have a right to express any disdain I have toward science, without science's comrades attacking the messenger, instead of the points he makes.

Even if my disdain comes from a lack of education in the scientific field, that's no excuse to shoot the messenger.

It seems to me someone was recently silenced for what he believes in, whether the silencer believed he was speaking right or wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The "Creationists" (then "Creation Scientists") create these elaborate science-like narratives to jam between the lines of Genesis so that modern geology, biology, and even astronomy can jammed into the text as if it were real. Creating this extra-biblical version of "creation" that is pushed as the proper religious form by people like Ken Ham. It creates nonsense like post-flood hyperevolution, continental rearrangement during the flood, and dinosaurs on the ark. Not a single one of those things is actual in the Bible.

Where AV comes in is that he has his own *personal* version of this that doesn't match any of the organizations, denominations, or the text itself.

Or the biggest one: embedded age.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Or the biggest one: embedded age.

I thought that one only had one proponent.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll give you the benefit of this post, that you're not calling me "insincere."

I feel I have a right to express any disdain I have toward science, without science's comrades attacking the messenger, instead of the points he makes.

Even if my disdain comes from a lack of education in the scientific field, that's no excuse to shoot the messenger.

It seems to me someone was recently silenced for what he believes in, whether the silencer believed he was speaking right or wrong.

I am 100% calling you insincere, plain and simple.

And no way is your persecution complex that strong....

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought that one only had one proponent.

And he is the main one I'm talking about.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where AV comes in is that he has his own *personal* version of this that doesn't match any of the organizations, denominations, or the text itself.

Please keep that in mind, the next time you see me called a YEC, OEC, Last Thursdayist, Omphalist, or anything else but what I claim to be.

Thanks.

(And I find it interesting that our premier "you're a YEC, whether you know it or not" poster here gave that a WINNER emoticon.)