- Apr 17, 2006
- 6,220
- 3,838
- 45
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- AU-Greens
Thanks for such a nice reply.
I don't believe I have a skewed idea about the Cambrian Explosion. Of course, I'm not going by the same information you have. I explained my view in another post...I don't understand how we get from one stratos to the other and I don't see links in between. I'm going by images of the different time zones and the different stratos. I admit that there must surely be something I don't see since I'm sure it's much more complicated than any images makes it seem.
But, yes, how does "TUBE" get to be a "FISH"?.
I just think this is too complicated and given any amount of time it just cannot happen. I do, however, realize I may be wrong about this...but some scientists seem to agree.
The way the jaw-less tubes became what you would recognise as fish is just through many, many tiny steps. We don't have actual fossils of all the inbetweens, but we have the method and enough time for it to be possible.
You keep bringing up the scientists who disagree, but you never engage that they don't ever have actual evidence to present. If a mechanic tells you he could modify a car to run on tap water that would be great... but if he can't show you a working model or even explain how , just stick with the rest of the mechanics telling you to use fuel.
I agree with micro evolution. I think everyone does. It's obvious to all. This would be adaptation, or the survival of the fittest, or selection, etc.
But some add to this the beginning of life...
I find this to be a totally different argument.
If we understood HOW life began,,,why could we not reproduce it? Surely there must be a reason...maybe it's just not doable?
The problem is that there isn't any real barrier between micro and macro evolution. It's just the tiny changes of micro evolution, that only in retrospect are macro evolution.
It's like saying you believe in hills, but not mountains.
That's one way of looking at it.Interesting!
I think I understand better now.
The footprints in the mud would have disappeared,,,but not the ones on the pavement.
That's all fine, but many Christians agree with both. You are happy with life changing and adapting on a small scale, why couldn't an all-powerful designer made a universe that would bring forth life that could keep adapting on its own?I don't know how it all happened.
I just can't discount ID, or, as I like to call it...God.
Yes, maybe he just loves to create...
maybe He was creating a good earth for us to live in.
Maybe He's still creating....so many galaxies...
(I know this sounds silly to you).
Where do you draw the line?Yes, it's that changing into different life forms that gives most creationists a problem...and even some atheists. Maybe one has to be a scientist to be able to understand this.
You accept that geologically not that long ago polar bears and grizzly bears were the same animals. Surely you can stretch that a little further and see all bears as more and more little changes on a basic animal structure.
Meanwhile, I'm sure you could imagine all wolves, dogs, jackals and coyotes as also being variations on a theme.
Now you just have to look at these two families and see that a "dog" and a "bear" are pretty similar in structure. If you look closer at their skeletons and even their DNA you can see the pattern of similarities.
But it goes even further, we've even found fossils of bear-dogs from before these two groups of animals were as distinct as they are today.
Now it's an explanation to say that an Intelligent Designer just tired of his bear-dogs and made up dogs and bears as replacements... but isn't it more reasonable to apply the explanation that works on a small timeline to just more varieties over a longer period?
Remember we're not talking about a bear-dog suddenly giving birth to a bear or a dog... we're talking about the populations separating and over a very long period of time with many almost invisible steps.
It's a matter of rational reasons.Maybe they don't know the answer but have been convinced that species change into a different species? I could not like taking a certain medicine, but have nothing to replace it with. I don't have a problem with needing to know another solutions before I leave one I don't accept.
If you can't actually point out the flaws in a scientific theory... you aren't presenting an oposing theory or hypothesis, you're just saying you don't like the answers.
They don't and for, I suspect, the same kind of reasons.Hmmm. How come every scientist agrees that gravity exists? But they don't all agree with this idea of species changing..
Take a look at electric universe proponents who don't believe in relativity. Look for people who believe that it is density, not gravity that keeps things down. Look at flat Earthers, moon landing deniers.
(And those are just examples that are promoted on this website).
If someone has an emotional or religious investment in a certain answer, that is a motivation to be bias against something, regardless of evidence.
Okay, but the approximately 14 billion year or infinite age of the universe doesn't really effect the timeline of life on Earth. We still have the 4 or 5 billion years for the Solar system's beginning, then the hundreds of millions of years for the Earth to settle down and life to get going.Yes, in the 60's the age of the earth was already established. This is NOT what I was referring to: I was referring to the existence of t he universe.
It was believed that the universe ALWAYS EXISTED...that it had no beginning. Then the BB was generally accepted. I might have mis-spoken.
We haven't been able to do something doesn't mean it's impossible... it's also 100% irrelevant the theory of evolution.People DO try to demonstrate that life can be created in a lab. Isn't the fact that this cannot be done proof enough that the beginning of life is not possible without some "spark" that may very well be metaphysical?
An Intellgent Designer could have crafted the Cambrian Life from the void and evolution would still be the best explanation for the modern diversity of life.
If a thing doesn't leave evidence then they can't be proven. They also can't be disproven.Maybe there are some experiences that are repeated and can even be tested,,,,but it may not be science and certainly is not accepted by the scientific community.
Can miracles be proven?
Can NDE be proven?
Why not?
BUT if there is evidence it is reasonable to accept the demonstrable explanation.
If I come back from the shops to discover that somehow a steak has moved from the bench and only a chewed on bone is sitting on the kitchen floor, I could assume that it is a miracle and I should now become a vegetarian... or I can be very suspicious of Abby the LabX looking very guilty near the stairs.
Upvote
0