- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,119
- 52,646
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?
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.
Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?AV, modern evolutionary theory is based on evidence derived from chemistry, physics, geology, and other disciplines. Because of the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, it is recognized and endorsed as a key principle of science, on par with the atomic theory of matter, and as a central theme of science education by all major scientific societies.
Instead of copy/pasting that wall of text. Why don't you tell us what you think about it? You can sprinkle in a few quotes and links here and there; but posts like this are bad manners... especially since you didn't even take the time to correct the formatting.
Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?
They aren't really. Both described systems happen in different circumstances.
PE was a theory introduced to describe outlying events because new evidence was discovered.
If evolution was all some lie, why would they have bothered? They could have just said: "Yes, just as sainted Darwin proclaimed! There is no god and evolution teaches us to destroy!" But that's not what happens, evolutionists are constantly trying to refine and improve the theory.
You are describing your own position here.
Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it. In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?
Not really.
The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it.
In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?
Except they weren't. The people who wrote the books of the Bible didn't even get started in their writing until at least a generation AFTER Jesus is supposed to have died. They wrote on the basis of ORAL recollections of events which may or may not have occurred.
And there is enough evidence to doubt whether or not Jesus even existed.
Evolution is not observable
, repeatable,
or refutable
so it doesn't qualify as a scientific fact or theory.
Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers
many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.
You cannot see evolution taking place.
You cannot say that "we are here, so it happened".
The Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable either. Both are belief systems and rely on faith.
What you guys do is take a normal fact of nature (variety within species)
and then turn it into a frog becoming a human prince and imagining you can find evidence for it.
I don't know why you guys keep using crime scenes and courts as an analogy.
Police detectives often get things wrong, some make things up and verdicts are often reached by the emotions of the jury and often not by the evidence presented, per say.
A lot of cases are solved by eyewitness testimony more so than by anything else.
You could probably confirm all that from anyone that has taken a criminal justice course (as I have).
It's a very, very poor comparison.
The fact that you don't know why, actually explains quite a lot about your complete ill-understanding of biological science.
It's a good analogy, because if we apply YOUR type of reasoning to crime scene investigation, then it becomes IMPOSSIBLE to EVER convict ANYONE of ANYTHING if there are no eyewitnesses.
And what makes the irony meter explode about that, is that eyewitnesses ("personal testimony") is not at all reliable when it isn't corroborated with actual evidence that you are trying to toss out the window.
Wait, so your objection to crime scene investigation is that.... humans can make mistakes and lie?????
But when you only have "human testimony" to defend your bronze-age beliefs - then suddenly it is okay???
The hypocracy is mindblowing.
Right, because eyewitnesses do not make mistakes, aren't guided by emotion and are unable to lie.
Right, so let's look at a hypothetical scenario and apply your reasoning to it and see what happens.
A murder took place. A body is found with a knife sticking in the back. The knife has fingerprints of person A. On the body, DNA is found from person A. In the home of person A, a shirt is found with bloodstains of the victim. A speeding ticket is uncovered from person A, dating to half an hour after the murder close to where the murder took place. Person A has no alibi. The victim owed person A some money - so there is a possible motive.
However, a person claiming to be an eyewitness says that he saw person B kill the victim. Nothing else but this "testimony" points to B. Without the testimony, B's name wouldn't even have come up.
So YOU would discard all the evidence and convict B?
If you do, then you are unfit for jury duty.
If you don't, then you just contradicted your own nonsense.
Good day.
Again, comparing evolution evidence with crime scene evidence is just completely off. They are two entirely different things.
And I suppose police should not question anyone at the scene of a crime or accident? Really? I just recently had a motorcycle accident and guess what? The police officer asked me what happened and put it in his report!
I think you are confusing individual eyewitness testimony on the stand to multiple eyewitness questioning
Yes, I know how important evidence is, that is why I comment about suspect scientific findings that are touted as fact.
Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it. In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?
Is that why punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are at odds with each other?
Not really. The authors of the bible and the main author, Jesus, were there to see it.
In fact he created everything. What better eyewitness could there be?
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,The authors of the Gospels were not there to see it,
Except they weren't. The people who wrote the books of the Bible didn't even get started in their writing until at least a generation AFTER Jesus is supposed to have died. They wrote on the basis of ORAL recollections of events which may or may not have occurred.
And there is enough evidence to doubt whether or not Jesus even existed.
Luke 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luke 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luke 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
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?