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.
Again, "That your take on it is questionable."Again, if you're referring to the fact that the scientific theory of evolution is incomplete and there is more to learn, the same is true of every scientific theory including gravity.
So again, what's your point?
Unlike you, what nature looks like is not my 'end all' as far as thought on the matter goes. My argument here is that for all I know, God could have used elements of the same building blocks in each individual creation.If you're suggesting that life forms were created individually, there is currently no scientific theory that supports that.
The scientific evidence supports all life forms sharing common ancestry; that's just the way nature looks.
If creationists want to argue otherwise, the onus is on them to come up with something better that the scientific theory of evolution. They haven't done that.
Again, "That your take on it is questionable."
Unlike you, what nature looks like is not my 'end all' as far as thought on the matter goes. My argument here is that for all I know, God could have used elements of the same building blocks in each individual creation.
It's not odd at all if you begin with the take that it looks like there is a Creator. When you get that far back in the sequence, it's not iron clad scientific evidence that stands in your way at all... it's only you that stands in your way, one way or the other.You haven't explained what that means. Nor does that change the fact the theory of evolution is still the only scientific explanation on the table and has real world applications.
I know, most creationists defer to the fact that life forms look evolved even though they simultaneously claim they aren't.
It's an odd contradiction.
Yeah, He made it look like it evolved. Some creationists aver that He did it as a test of our faith. To see how steadfastly we would stand with a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of ever more scientific evidence against it.Again, "That your take on it is questionable."
Unlike you, what nature looks like is not my 'end all' as far as thought on the matter goes. My argument here is that for all I know, God could have used elements of the same building blocks in each individual creation.
If you begin with the take that there is a Creator, you still don't get to a literal Genesis. What you get to is pretty much what science is finding out about how it happened. If you want to bring Genesis into it that's up to you. But it's a separate issue which has nothing to do with whether there s a creator or not.It's not odd at all if you begin with the take that it looks like there is a Creator. When you get that far back in the sequence, it's not iron clad scientific evidence that stands in your way at all... it's only you that stands in your way, one way or the other.
‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”Yeah, He made it look like it evolved. Some creationists aver that He did it as a test of our faith. To see how steadfastly we would stand with a literal interpretation of Genesis in the face of ever more scientific evidence against it.
That may well be the case; but until they make themselves known we must deal with what is known and observable in our philosophy.‘There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Shakespeare
I’ll let you have the last word, it’s hard to follow Shakespeare with an ‘other than the gospels’ resource.That may well be the case; but until they make themselves known we must deal with what is known and observable in our philosophy.
IOW, if there were other influences (in heaven and earth, Horatio) that had some discernable effect upon the world we know that we would not expect from natural causes, we would take them into account in our descriptions of the world.
To date we haven't seen any, but as our instruments become increasingly sensitive, the chance that we will detect such influences grows, so don't give up hope; although given the sensitivity of our instruments, if detected, any such influences will necessarily be insignificantly small in effect...
I thought only frogs and small creatures were amphibians.Amphibians aren't really known for being great aquatic swimmers, nor are they known for being great terrestrial runners either. But they manage to get by in their respective environments. The same would apply for transitional cetaceans.
An animal doesn't have to be an apex predator to survive in the world.
It's not odd at all if you begin with the take that it looks like there is a Creator.
When you get that far back in the sequence, it's not iron clad scientific evidence that stands in your way at all... it's only you that stands in your way, one way or the other.
I need examples of large amphibians, not moose.If you want a comparable example, take the tapir. They have shorter legs than Zebras and engage in semi-aquatic behaviors. Do you think this animal shouldn't exist?
Or how about the water chevrotain? This video depicts it escaping an eagle by diving underwater:
If you really want to understand the ecology of semi-aquatic animals, I suggest just reading up on them. There are a whole variety of animals to choose from. If you want hoofed mammals specifically, you can read up on the behaviors of:
* Tapirs
* Water deer
* Marsh deer
* Chevrotain
* Water buffalo
* Moose
etc.
I need examples of large amphibians, not moose.
In some places hoofed animals can venture into the water, to cool off. To have a wash, to rid themselves of flying pests.Huh? You were talking about zebras and other hoofed mammals before. Those aren't amphibians.
Or are you finally satisfied that hoofed mammals can in fact live semi-aquatic lives, thus leading to perfectly plausible evolutionary transitions to an aquatic environment (as per the evolution of whales)?
In some places hoofed animals can venture into the water, to cool off. To have a wash, to rid themselves of flying pests.
We need large amphibian fossils to confirm your hypothesis.
But what about the transition from land to water, that is more the domain of an amphibian.And also for food, given that a number of those animals have diets that include large portions of aquatic plants.
Not if we're talking about the evolution of whales. Whales didn't evolve from amphibians. They evolved from terrestrial mammals.
I thought only frogs and small creatures were amphibians.
The Chinese giant salamander has been measured at 5.9 feet in length, versus Pakicetus which ranged from 3-6 feet.
But this is irrelevant. The point is that even animals that aren't particularly good at swimming or running, can still be successful at surviving in particular environments.
One never knows whether to take you seriously when you're hyperbolic like that.Something in the ocean decided it wanted to live on land, crawled out of the water and floundered until it finally grew legs, ran about for several million years then decided it liked the ocean better after all, jumped back in and splashed around until it lost its legs and finally got the size of a mountain. That makes sense… not. I think sea turtles did the same thing, except they remained turtles for some reason. Hmmm.
Just trying to keep it light Speedwell.One never knows whether to take you seriously when you're hyperbolic like that.
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?