- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,169
- 52,652
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sounds witchy.I might contract cancer continuing to visit this thread.
That doesnt say anything about evolution at all. Thats talking about how we will die and be ressurrected in a spiritual body. All bodies are different, but that doesnt mean they didnt proceed from the same origin. Now if a celestial or spiritual body is different than a terrestial body, and yet a celestial body proceeds from a terrestial body when it dies, why cant the flesh of man proceed from the flesh of animals?
I feel that people here have jumped to conclusions and mischaracterized me completely.
Im not some Darwin fanatic. I couldnt care less whether evolution is true or not, and neither should you.
I simply have an open mind. My faith is based on trusting in God alone, not on arrogant insistence that I know everything. So whether Im right or wrong, Im still going to believe in God. Can you say the same for yourself?
Did I ever say that the saints believed the sun rotated around the earth? No. When the discovery was made, it was a common belief and people who did not believe in the sun rotating around the earth were condemned as heretics. Not unlike the accustions being made here against people who disagree with you.
Now, when I was younger I wanted to be a paleontologist, and I stayed up to date on the debate about Evolution, so I know a thing or two about it. I have argued for both sides and frankly both sides have issues.
The gaps in the fossil record are, indeed, one of the most damning problems with the theory. I have a fossil collection and while fossils are abundant and I myself own hundreds, not a single one is in the process of transition. Why?
But thats not to say that transitional fossils dont exist, there are a few examples. Just not as many as we would expect to see.
Of course, if you believe in evolution being a tool used by God, its easy to reconcile the difference. We dont need to guess where the big bang came from, because we can say it happened at Gods command. Evolution, likewise, was caused by Gods command and so did not need to be caused by time and chance. God already knew the designs he had in mind and guided the process. They would have evolved much more quickly.
But the science is never final. When people say you need to accept the scientific consensus as fact, im immediately suspicious of their knowledge of the history of science. For as long as weve had the scientific process, scientists have been getting things wrong. Read the history of science and youll cringe. For instance, less than a century ago Darwin was mocked by everybody else in the scientific field as being unscientific for sticking to his theory, because the scientific consensus at the time was that the earth was 400,000 years old. And scientists in every field had corroborating evidence, from astronomy, the salt in the oceans, the thermal heat of the earth, etc. They thought it was a fact. But when radiation was discovered, it completely shattered their theory.
A recent study in a peer reviewed journal said that 90% of peer reviewed studies turn out to be false.
So, no, just because a scientist says it doesnt mean its undeniable fact. We have been wrong in the past, why would we be suddenly perfectly right about everything now? Most likely we arent and will look back and cringe in the future at how ignorant we were. But thats the nature of science, theories are constantly being disproved and replaced, and we move forward. And thats how we advance as a society. One cannot be too stuck in their own ways. No matter which side you are on.
Here is one of those babies stuck in the mud you asked for.
"Among extinct dinosaurs, feathers or feather-like integument have been discovered on dozens of genera via both direct and indirect fossil evidence. The vast majority of feather discoveries have been for coelurosaurian theropods. However, integument has also been discovered on at least threeornithischians, raising the likelihood that proto-feathers were also present in earlier dinosaurs, and perhaps even a more ancestral animal, in light of the pycnofibers ofpterosaurs. Crocodilians also possess beta keratin very similar to those of birds, which suggests that they evolved from a common ancestral gene.[3]"
"A number of non-avian[14] dinosaurs are now known to have been feathered. Direct evidence of feathers exists for the following species, listed in the order currently accepted evidence was first published. In all examples, the evidence described consists of feather impressions, except those genera inferred to have had feathers based on skeletal or chemical evidence, such as the presence of quill knobs (the anchor points for wing feathers on the forelimb) or a pygostyle (the fused vertebrae at the tail tip which often supports large feathers).
Avimimus portentosus (inferred 1987: ulnar ridge)[15][16]Sinosauropteryx prima (1996)[17]Protarchaeopteryx robusta (1997)[18]GMV 2124 (1997)[19]Caudipteryx zoui (1998)[20]Rahonavis ostromi (inferred 1998: quill knobs; possibly avialan[21])[22]Shuvuuia deserti (1999)[23]Beipiaosaurus inexpectus (1999)[24]Sinornithosaurus millenii (1999)[25]Caudipteryx dongi (2000)[26]Caudipteryx sp. (2000)[27]Microraptor zhaoianus (2000)[28]Nomingia gobiensis (inferred 2000: pygostyle)[29]Psittacosaurus sp.? (2002)[30]Scansoriopteryx heilmanni (2002; possibly avialan)[31]Yixianosaurus longimanus (2003)[32]Dilong paradoxus (2004)[33]Pedopenna daohugouensis (2005; possibly avialan[34])[35]Jinfengopteryx elegans (2005)[36][37]Juravenator starki (2006)[38][39]Sinocalliopteryx gigas (2007)[40]Velociraptor mongoliensis (inferred 2007: quill knobs)[7]Epidexipteryx hui (2008; possibly avialan)[41]Similicaudipteryx yixianensis (inferred 2008: pygostyle; confirmed 2010)[42][43]Anchiornis huxleyi (2009; possibly avialan)[44]Tianyulong confuciusi? (2009)[45]Xiaotingia zhengi (2011; possibly avialan)[46]Yutyrannus huali (2012)[47]Sciurumimus albersdoerferi (2012)[48]Ornithomimus edmontonicus (2012)[49]Ningyuansaurus wangi (2012)[50]Eosinopteryx brevipenna (2013; possibly avialan)[51]Jianchangosaurus yixianensis (2013)[52]Aurornis xui (2013; possibly avialan)[53]Changyuraptor yangi (2014)[54]Kulindadromeus zabaikalicus? (2014)[55]Citipati osmolskae (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Conchoraptor gracilis (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[56]Deinocheirus mirificus (inferred 2014: pygostyle)[57]Yi qi (2015)[58]Zhenyuanlong suni (2015)[59]Dakotaraptor steini (inferred 2015: quill knobs)[60]Apatoraptor pennatus (inferred 2016: quill knobs)[61]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur
I simply have an open mind. My faith is based on trusting in God alone, not on arrogant insistence that I know everything. So whether Im right or wrong, Im still going to believe in God. Can you say the same for yourself?
To dismiss evolution (in such a way as seen in this thread), is to fail to be honest.
Or could it be, it is to fail to be stupid?
Most of what I studied was from Young Earth Creationists. I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them. And that could be explaoned by Gods involvement. Dont people read anymore? Its very frustrating having to repeat myself when people dont understand! Why do I even bother?However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. If Macro-Evolution were true, we would have tons of transitional half giraffe half something else type bones and half gorilla half something else type bones. But we do not even have one species where we can see a clear line of transition slowly happening over time by looking at their fossil record. Finding a species that shares common traits of two other species is not proof but it is conjecture. We need solid proof of Macro Evolution by seeing tons of transitional fossils and there is none. This is just one of the many problems with Macro Evolution. Oh, and I believe your studying to be a paleontologist is what influenced you to believe that Macro Evolution could be potentially true or that the Earth is old and not young. The world can be pretty influential. To reject the ways of the world and to stand up for God's Word is not an easy thing to do. For who wants to be made fun of?
...
Well said.
1 Corinthians 1:25
"Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."
...
Most of what I studied was from Young Earth Creationists. I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them. And that could be explaoned by Gods involvement. Dont people read anymore? Its very frustrating having to repeat myself when people dont understand! Why do I even bother?
The truth seems to be that the untouchable doctrine lies is on the side of Darwinism and anybody who challenges Darwinian pan-adaptionism instantly gets put in the heretical "young earth creationist" box.If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?
What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?
I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.
However, there is no transitional fossils in abundance, though. There is no findings like that. If Macro-Evolution were true, we would have tons of transitional half giraffe half something else type bones and half gorilla half something else type bones. But we do not even have one species where we can see a clear line of transition slowly happening over time by looking at their fossil record. Finding a species that shares common traits of two other species is not proof but it is conjecture. We need solid proof of Macro Evolution by seeing tons of transitional fossils and there is none. This is just one of the many problems with Macro Evolution. Oh, and I believe your studying to be a paleontologist is what influenced you to believe that Macro Evolution could be potentially true or that the Earth is old and not young. The world can be pretty influential. To reject the ways of the world and to stand up for God's Word is not an easy thing to do. For who wants to be made fun of?
...
If evolution is one of the strongest explanatory theories in any academic field, I mean, the evidence is simply overwhelming, how do Christians reconcile this?
What about the Biblical scholars that generally dismiss Genesis as a "historical" representation... but rather "myth" (however you want to define that)?
I understand I'm courting "controversy" here, but I'd genuinely like to hear this, supposedly, untouchable theological answer.
Transitional fossils is a made-up term.I told you that there are transitional fossils but theres not an abundance of them.
The fossil record tells a clear story.
There is lots of "solid proof."
We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."
"But where are the fossils between those two???"
Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."
Fossils tell us one thing and one thing only...... that that organism, animal, bird, plant,.....lived and died.The fossil record tells a clear story.
There is lots of "solid proof."
We know that fossilization is a rare phenomenon, as it requires specific set of conditions for it to happen. There are well-document and phenomenal examples like the evolution of the whale. It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils, it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."
"But where are the fossils between those two???"
Secondly, this isn't a problem for "macroevolution."
Don't even evolutionists claim that the theory of evolution can stand sans fossils?It hardly matters to some Christians that there are lots of fossils,
That's right ... there are gaps.Indent said:... it'll be the same half-baked excuse "there are gaps."
I was homeschooled until my junior year of highschool by my mother on Sonlight Christian curriculum and ACE Christan curriculum, when I went to a private Christian school, and I studied paleontology through Christian curriculum, Christian video programs (such as those from the Museum of Christian Science and Ken Hovind and other prominent Creationist scientists), and Bible class. Thats where I first heard about Macro Evolution.So you are saying that when you studied "paleontology", you did it thru a Christian school and not a secular one? Are you saying you did not go to a public high school, as well (whereby it did not teach Macro Evolution)? How did you come to learn of Macro-Evolution?
...
Please answer my question. If a celestial body can come from a different kind of terrestial body, according to that very scripture, why can the flesh of man not come forth from the flesh of animals?This is just a fantasy. You have not dug up these bones and analyzed them for yourself on a genetic level (Which would be considered as solid proof). Anyone can takes bones from the ground and arrange them in a way that is pretty and nice and say.... "Hey look! Transitional fossils!" when it is simply not true.
Again, the Bible says there is a flesh of beasts, a flesh of birds, a flesh of fishes, that is different from the flesh of men. For the Bible says not all flesh is the same flesh.
...
Fossils tell us one thing and one thing only...... that that organism, animal, bird, plant,.....lived and died.
It cannot tell us if it had other siblings, offspring, what it's father or mother looked like, what it's great grandparents were, what it's great grand children looked like.... nothing.
Fossils are a snap shot of a period in time where the particular animal existed and died.
The rest is speculation, assumption, extrapolation, exaggeration and guess work.
In order for the complete library of organisms on this planet to have all came from one ancestor, over billions of years, there would need to be a plethora of transitional beings. The fact that they are not there, kills evolution. If you say that they existed but only certain conditions are favorable for fossils to form... then you still have no evidence. Your argument is conjecture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?