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.
I understand how Evolution works, a brilliant idea, but all I see are abrupt, sudden, explosions of life. That is the hard evidence, that is what the fossil evidence tells us.Given that you've demonstrated a bit of a lack of understanding about how evolution actually works, I have to wonder if you are in a position to justly say that my example is invalid.
But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.
This profound transition is impossible.
I understand how Evolution works, a brilliant idea, but all I see are abrupt, sudden, explosions of life. That is the hard evidence, that is what the fossil evidence tells us.
Your looking through evolutionary glasses and seeing events that the fossil record denies.
Wow. That's really a blast form the past. It's been a while since I heard any form of the "dragging around a useless half-formed limb waiting for just the right mutation to come along" argument.But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.
This profound transition is impossible.
Why do you think so? Is there some critical transitional niche between fully terrestrial and fully aquatic that isn't currently successfully occupied by a mammal species?But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.
This profound transition is impossible.
No, only that it is a theory... with lots of holes in it, if you allow yourself to see them.So?
Are you suggesting that is evidence against evolution?
No, only that it is a theory...
with lots of holes in it, if you allow yourself to see them.
But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.
This profound transition is impossible.
Are there predators in the water or on land. Obviously a Zebra with shorter legs is not swimming very fast, nor running for that matter. So how does this species survive?
Where does the Zebra raise its young, at the water's edge. Or does it travel inland and bear it's offspring?
You don't have to explain anything... I was just referring to it by the name it goes by (TOE), and that as a theory it has holes in it, no matter how sold on it you are.Do we have to explain what "theory" means in a scientific context again?
You don't have to explain anything... I was just referring to it by the name it goes by (TOE), and that as a theory it has holes in it, no matter how sold on it you are.
That your take on it is questionable.If by "holes" you are referring to the fact that it's incomplete or that there are things we don't yet know, that's true of every scientific theory, including gravity.
So what's your point?
That your take on it is questionable.
Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it."Allowing oneself to see them" seems to equate with "completely misunderstand and/or ignore the science involved".
And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.There is a reason why beliefs in creationism are correlated with lack of understanding of science and evolution.
Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it.
And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.
I would call the notion that God could only have created according to a literal reading of Genesis a lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.Or misinterpreting the scientific evidence altogether, and refusing to admit it.
And, there is a reason why an unwavering adherence to scientific-thought-only correlates with the lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.
Hey, I didn’t completely disagree with Kylie’s questions. In fact, I agreed with some of them… even got a thank you for it. I merely pointed out that the evolutionary process has holes in it and that it is not as ‘cut & dry’ as you apparently think. Some form of evolution (I prefer variation and adaptation) occurs… just not to the point of nullifying the creation account. As I said, my take is not an either/or world.The scientific theory of evolution is the best and most well-supported explanation for the diversity of biological life on Earth and even has real world applications.
There's nothing better on the table.
I merely pointed out that the evolutionary process has holes in it and that it is not as ‘cut & dry’ as you apparently think.
Some form of evolution (I prefer variation and adaptation) occurs… just not to the point of nullifying the creation account.
But your talking about millions of years of gradual variation. Any species transforming from a tetrapod to a infraorder Cetacea, is extremely vulnerable during that slow transition. Mainly because it cannot swim or run properly during that transition. Regardless of how many traits are developing.
This profound transition is impossible.
I believe what the Bible tells us, Genesis included, as understanding it in the context that it is written. As far as the mechanism involved, the extent of it, timeframe, etc., my take (beyond faith) is just like yours… speculation only and has holes in it.I would call the notion that God could only have created according to a literal reading of Genesis a lack of understanding in regard to divine creation.
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?