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.
A hypothesis is not a theory until it is repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence. Evolution, like gravity, is an observed phenomenon. There are theories that explain them.Except that just plainly isn't true, otherwise evolution wouldn't be a theory. Again: a theory is an explanation of facts and evidence in science. It is not just a guess.
Precisely.However, classifications of Ediacaran biota are a highly contentious topic and source of ongoing research and debate. There's also reasonable arguments to stick everything in a handful of catch-all precambrian phyla (like Proarticulata) and call it a day.
The problem seems to be biomineralisation, or rather a lack of it. Hard shells and then hard skeletons don't appear until the very end of the Ediacaran/very early Cambrian. This seems to have been the trophic novelty that kicked off the evolutionary arms race in the Cambrian. It also vastly increased the potential for remains to be fossilised.
This created a preservation bias. The 'explosion' seen in the fossil record in the Cambrian may thus be the first such that could be preserved, because all precursor species were soft bodied and were thus much less likely to be preserved.
You would, but it would have made me wait longer. I don’t mean to be personal, but why didn’t you call yourself Alfred?
Because he is really Genghis Khan.
You are probably unaware of the science of evolutionary development. Might be worth investigating. While common descent isn't actually part of evolutionary theory, it is understandable as a consequence of evolution.Sure, I agree that science involves hypothesis testing and data analysis. But when it comes to evolutionary claims, especially large-scale historical ones like common ancestry, the origin of body plans, or the transformation of major life forms, we run into serious limitations that don’t apply to experimental sciences like chemistry or physics.
That is a pity. I was hoping we could get a little closer to understanding the relationship between the conscious mind and the self. I know you don't believe in the spiritual, but I was hoping some of my questions about what the conscious mind is would receive a new trail to finding the answers.I don't think the thing that theology calls a soul exists or could even possibly exist. (The "dying every night" bit was a joke.)
Hi Phil. thanks for the answer.My real name is Phil.
My screen name is a portmanteau of AV1611 (since I'm KJB only), and VET (since I'm a Vietnam Era veteran).
I have a thread on this here
This isn't really the thread for that, but if MM was here he'd probably try to make it so.That is a pity. I was hoping we could get a little closer to understanding the relationship between the conscious mind and the self. I know you don't believe in the spiritual, but I was hoping some of my questions about what the conscious mind is would receive a new trail to finding the answers.
Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population. Microevolution is evolution within a species. Macroevolution is speciation (or evolution of new taxa). That is also observed.Where is the evidence of Evolution?
We also see macroevolution, the evolution of new species. Would you like some examples?We see microevolution, that is, birds adapting to their environment, so birds turning into birds.
See above. You've confused common descent with macroevolution. Not the same thing. However, I gave you a great deal of evidence for the descent that went from fish to tetrapods to aminiotes, to mammals. (cats are mammals). You ignored it. So I'm thinking you don't want to see it.But we do not see macroevolution, that is, fish turning into cats.
That's easily testable. Which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory has been refuted? Be specific. It's not a rhetorical question; I'd like an answer.There is no evidence for Darwinian Evolution.
People who say "it's only a theory" don't understand science. I don't think I've ever said "it's only a theory." Theories are well-tested and confirmed explanations for observed phenomena. You seem to have confused "hypothesis" and "theory."As you have said, it is only a theory.
Colossians 2:8 ???
I was referring to Romans 1:22.
For example, Huxley, based on anatomical features in crocodiles, predicted that bird descended from other dinosaurs. How could we test it? First, his prediction that there would be transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs has been repeatedly verified. At least some dinosaurs had feathers, and at least some of them had the so-called avian respiratory system, and much more. If you can name even one feature of birds that is not present in other dinosaurs, now would be the time for you to show us. What do you have?Darwinian evolution, by definition, cannot be directly observed or repeated, especially when it is said to happen over millions of years. No one has ever observed one kind of animal slowly turning into another with a new body plan. At best, we observe small changes within species (microevolution), but the kind of large-scale transformation required by Darwinian theory (macroevolution) is assumed, not observed.
So, how can you test a process that supposedly happened 60 million years ago?
People are often wildly mistaken about themselves, for a variety of reasons. When the choice is between believing someone's self-report, or believing the word of God the choice is obvious, even if the self-reporter is offended by the implication.I am aware of the inequality. See, we atheists actually know what we believe and don't believe, as just like you believers do about yourselves, it is in our own minds. Our own understanding of ourselves (as is for your of yourselves) is superior to any other persons opinion or book.
I would suspect as much.I am not impressed by the fanatical opinions of Paul of Tarsus.
I'm not concerned with the feelings or opinions of human beings, at least not when it brushes up against believing the word of God.Someday, I hope you'll realize how rude and condescending this "position" is and you'll finally accept people for who they say they are.
It certainly has some difficult areas, but once you accept an omnipotent God the more outlandish portions become far less difficult.No doubt, but it is such a problematic and unbelievable text.
To be polite, I should tell you that my real name is Gerard.
Someday I hope you realize how rude it is to apply your religious presuppositions to other people, but it is a thin hope and will not be waiting out your moral improvement.People are often wildly mistaken about themselves, for a variety of reasons. When the choice is between believing someone's self-report, or believing the word of God the choice is obvious, even if the self-reporter is offended by the implication.
I would suspect as much.
I'm not concerned with the feelings or opinions of human beings, at least not when it brushes up against believing the word of God.
The text provides more problems to one who thinks it was written/inspired by an omnipotent being than for those who don't.It certainly has some difficult areas, but once you accept an omnipotent God the more outlandish portions become far less difficult.
And you are a moral authority because...?Someday I hope you realize how rude it is to apply your religious presuppositions to other people, but it is a thin hope and will not be waiting out your moral improvement.
I've never found it problematic, though I've never been one to take a verbal plenary view of inspiration all that seriously.The text provides more problems to one who thinks it was written/inspired by an omnipotent being than for those who don't.
The process for myself with intelligent design is that after years of reflection than came total dismissal.So when someone challenges that framework, the response shouldn’t be dismissal, it should be reflection.
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?