Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Is There a 'Middle Ground' Author?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rush1169" data-source="post: 60744744" data-attributes="member: 309746"><p>Not a middle ground between evoltuion/creation. Maybe 'middle ground' is the wrong term as the previous poster seemed to think in terms of theistic evolution. Maybe an example would be better. . .</p><p> </p><p>Let's say we're talking about 'transitional fossils' (ie the 'missing links'). The evolutionist seems to always say, "there are plenty, look at x, y, and z!" or "fossilization is too rare, that's why you find few/none" or "they haven't found any/few, but folks are still digging - there is a lot of digging to do" while the creationist always says, "there are none!"</p><p> </p><p>Then when the two open talks about missing links x, y, and z, it's always completely obvious to the evolutionist the transitional features while the creationist see no transitional evidence.</p><p> </p><p>Where is the 3rd party that can take an objective look at x, y, and z and talk about why they <em>may </em>be an example of a transitional and why they <em>may not </em>be an example of a transitional. It's that 3rd party who will take their best shot at an objective look between all the arguments and compile factual details for both cases.</p><p> </p><p>Hope that makes more sense <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rush1169, post: 60744744, member: 309746"] Not a middle ground between evoltuion/creation. Maybe 'middle ground' is the wrong term as the previous poster seemed to think in terms of theistic evolution. Maybe an example would be better. . . Let's say we're talking about 'transitional fossils' (ie the 'missing links'). The evolutionist seems to always say, "there are plenty, look at x, y, and z!" or "fossilization is too rare, that's why you find few/none" or "they haven't found any/few, but folks are still digging - there is a lot of digging to do" while the creationist always says, "there are none!" Then when the two open talks about missing links x, y, and z, it's always completely obvious to the evolutionist the transitional features while the creationist see no transitional evidence. Where is the 3rd party that can take an objective look at x, y, and z and talk about why they [I]may [/I]be an example of a transitional and why they [I]may not [/I]be an example of a transitional. It's that 3rd party who will take their best shot at an objective look between all the arguments and compile factual details for both cases. Hope that makes more sense :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Is There a 'Middle Ground' Author?
Top
Bottom