ID / IR from Paley's Watch to Behe's Flagella
- Thread starter Jamin4422
- Start date
i'm saying if it could happen in general, then yes it would be inconsistent with evolution because it doesn't predict such drastic changes.
also please link me to evidence of out of place fossils.
Upvote
0
Only evolutionist thinks they can dig up any bone out of the ground and claim it's their ancestor.
Upvote
0
I guess you didn't read the very chapter you speak of earlier?
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Chapter 6, Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
That is what we see with the evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear. We see the collateral descendants that have preserved the ancestral position of these bones as they evolved the IC middle ear.
Upvote
0
I would say the scribes that copied the original text were very accurate. Although even DNA has copy errors.
Of course even the book of revelation. But I am not sure anyone alive today is at the same level John was when he gave us the book of revelation. Still we do the best we can to understand what God is wanting to tell us. We leave it to Him because we know that He will accomplish His objective. We do our best and then we trust the rest to God.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
You assume the middle ear evolved it's not the same as proving the middle ear evolved. Darwin was force to look at modern creatures of the same group and use his imagination of how they evolved. The exact same with with his "The Little Eyeball that could" story.
Upvote
0
I don't assume it. I can observe it in the fossil record. We have the fossils, and we have the steps.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Upvote
0
Yes, it would. Cambrian strata is determined by the ratio of isotopes in surrounding igneous rock. It is not determined by the species found in strata.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Luke has the Geneology of Mary and Matthew has the Geneology of Joseph. This is all pretty basic stuff.
Yes, Jesus was born during the census. What does that have to do with any census that may have taken place 10 years later? Josephus wrote history books and he made a good living off of money he was paid to make people look good in the history books that he wrote. I do not know what Josephus had to say about the census. You do not read a lot about the Christians in his books, because they had no interest in paying him to be in his books.
Upvote
0
HitchSlap
PROUDLY PRIMATE
Yes, Jesus was born during the census. What does that have to do with any census that may have taken place 10 years later? Josephus wrote history books and he made a good living off of money he was paid to make people look good in the history books that he wrote. I do not know what Josephus had to say about the census. You do not read a lot about the Christians in his books, because they had no interest in paying him to be in his books.[/quote]
You still have failed to explain why the writers of Luke and Matthew have Jesus being born ten years apart.
Luke: 6/7 CE Jesus born during census of Quirinius.
Matthew: 4 BCE Jesus born before death of Herod.
Upvote
0
This doesn't prove they evolve as an intelligent designer can use the same parts in multiply ways. Since our middle bones used for impedance matching it points more toward something an engineer would do. We have many example of similarities that believe not to come from common ancestor (co-evolution) so there is no way to tell if similarity are the result evolution. This is circular reasoning that similarities are the result of evolution and at the same time used as evidence of evolution.
Talk origins thinks that slapping a butch of bones together proves evolution when you can have the same conclusion by slapping modern bones together.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
