How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?
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.
How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?I don't agree with that, evolution can still be easily discredited. Scientists have not really taken account yet of freedom in the universe, that things can turn out several different ways, that it is decided. That provides a huge potential for overthrowing evolution theory.
No. I am talking about people who argue against something who have absolutely no background in an area but present themselves as if they are more knowledgeable. An excellent example is the one where you addressed my comment and Cadet responded showing where your assertion was completely false.
The few papers from Cadet I've glace at seems to pointed toward Shapiro's "Natural Genetic Engineering" where mutation are not random as they appeared. Just like the Wright Brothers used "trial and error" to fine tune information to find a solution to a problem (like build a wing with less drag and more lift) so can asexual organisms like bacteria can uses "trial and error" by allowing mutations in hot spot to find a solution to a problem. Usually changing it's genetic code come at a cost which is why living system tries to resist mutations. This is new information but it's a known fact there is a limit of the amount of information that can be produce through "trial and error" programs even with a super computer. Notice that "trial and error" works best with organism large population like bacteria while less useful with small populations like mammals.
This is a real problem with evolution as the amount of mechanics found in living systems increases the more magical evolution becomes as it somehow has to creates all the mechanism which it runs on.
How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?
koonin, noble, and smith are not dismissing anything.Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?
Do I also need to disprove the existence of demons before I accept that seizures originate from epileptogenic discharges in the brain?if you take evolution to mean a natural origin for life and its diversity, then in order to prove this assumption then you must disprove a supernatural one.
This is a chat forum, not a review committee for Ivory Tower Publications Inc.
You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.koonin, noble, and smith are not dismissing anything.
i especially like the work of koonin for 2 important reasons.
first, he calls it like he sees it.
second, he's the lead investigator of NCBI
smith is on the record in 1995 with saying there are no theories (explanations) for the increasing complexity of the record, nor is there any empirical evidence of this increasing complexity.
i hardly call smith a creationist and he isn't dismissing anything.
likewise noble, who agrees with koonin that the modern synthesis needs replaced rather than merely extended.
Who believes in six creations as described by you other than you?Because you refuse to accept those 6 creations in which life arose fully formed and the 5 destruction's that followed - of which the fossil record is a record of the death of almost every living creature alive at the time of those cataclysms, just like those that refuse to accept it in young earth theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event
This is why in every single epoch layer - almost all previous life ceases to exist - and all new forms arise, because evolution is false, as well as is the belief in a young earth and only one creative act.
You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.
"Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?"
You can agree on principle but if you do not agree on particulars then you don't have a deal. That is the difference between academia and the real world. Those who can do, those who can't teach.evolution is basically the concept of a natural explanation of life and its diversity (no supernatural influence).
darwinism and others are the theories that attempt to explain the concept of evolution.
the above makes it clear that even though the theories may be wrong, the concept of evolution can still be valid.
the vast majority of the people mistakenly believe that if darwinism is wrong, then there must be a god.
In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.Who believes in six creations as described by you other than you?
How do you explain the distribution of the fossil record throughout sedimentary strata without evolution? If evolution were false, we you not expect to see fossils of all life forms in all layers of sedimentary strata?
I disagree it's has no bearing. This is a real problem with evolution is there is nothing can touch it including contradicting evidence. Even if a scientist claims it look as the simplest bacteria appeared as if it engineered by someone a millions times smarter than man we are reinsured that "evolution did it." Evolutionist have to continue deceiving themselves that it evolved and not designed.That's nice.But since it has no bearing on whether evolution is credible or not, I fail to discern its relevance in this thread.
What's contradicting about what you posted?I disagree it's has no bearing. This is a real problem with evolution is there is nothing can touch it including contradicting evidence.
I have never hear of that coming from mainstream theology, on that of "creation science", which is quite different from what "Creationism" used to be.In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.
They are whatever they want to be. Whatever they want to call themselves. Most blacks in America are descended from the slave masters and their "fancy" slave girl friends.Just as an Asian can mate with an African - combining that genome - and produce another breed within the species.
I am not concerned whether a person accepts or denies evolution. My concern is that "creation science" denies evolution by way of misrepresenting science. Thus rejecting it for the wrong reasons.Not really concerned about it. Accepting as fact that freedom is real, then any creation theory would be better than any evolution theory. That a child is a modified descendant of it's parents is not a satisfactory explanation for the origins of the child. Only the description of the decisions by which things comes to be is a satisfactory explanation for origins of anything.
In general God repopulates the earth with a remnant of what was here from the previous populations. As Jospeh said: "God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors." If God had not used Joseph to preserve his people we would not be having this discussion about the Bible today. So clearly God takes an active part and random mutations has little if anything to do with it.
99.9% of all the species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Can you imagine if you were to go to a zoo that had a representive of all those extinct species? Other then Jurassic park of course. It is actually evolution that demands a continuum.What evidence did you base this conclusion on?
first of all, i'm not arguing for or against a god.You missed my point entirely. Forget Koonin, Noble, and Smith and focus only the my question. By fallible writing of men, I mean those men who what is considered scripture.
"Why accept the physical evidence that we have instead of dismissing it through the fallible writings of men?"
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?