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="Loudmouth" data-source="post: 60745926" data-attributes="member: 11790"><p>This is actually a good example to use. The problem is not a lack of a middle ground. The problem is two completely different approaches to the evidence.</p><p> </p><p>In the scientific approach, Darwin proposed a theory of descent with modification. This necessarily means that there were species in the past that had a mixture of characteristics from earlier and later species, otherwise known as transitional fossils. What did scientists do? Create a definition for transitional fossil, and then look to see if newly discovered fossils meet this criteria. What happened? Fossil after fossil met this definition.</p><p> </p><p>In the creationist approach we have just the opposite. You start with the dogmatic position that transitional fossils can not exist. Ever. Creationists do not make a definition for transitional fossil and then look to see if fossils meet that definition. They can't do that. Instead, they just state that no fossil can ever be considered transitional because creationism has to be true and evolution has to be false. Just ask a creationist to list the criteria they use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. You will get a blank stare. They have no such list. They use no objective criteria to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. It isn't a matter of not seeing transitional fossils. They are not allowed to see them.</p><p> </p><p>There is no middle ground between these two approaches. Either you are willing to follow the evidence or you are not. Creationists are not willing. They can't even create a list of criteria for what a transitional fossil should look like because they know that any reasonable description will describe the fossils we already have, and that can not happen. Those who have followed the evidence come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see today.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Loudmouth, post: 60745926, member: 11790"] This is actually a good example to use. The problem is not a lack of a middle ground. The problem is two completely different approaches to the evidence. In the scientific approach, Darwin proposed a theory of descent with modification. This necessarily means that there were species in the past that had a mixture of characteristics from earlier and later species, otherwise known as transitional fossils. What did scientists do? Create a definition for transitional fossil, and then look to see if newly discovered fossils meet this criteria. What happened? Fossil after fossil met this definition. In the creationist approach we have just the opposite. You start with the dogmatic position that transitional fossils can not exist. Ever. Creationists do not make a definition for transitional fossil and then look to see if fossils meet that definition. They can't do that. Instead, they just state that no fossil can ever be considered transitional because creationism has to be true and evolution has to be false. Just ask a creationist to list the criteria they use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. You will get a blank stare. They have no such list. They use no objective criteria to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. It isn't a matter of not seeing transitional fossils. They are not allowed to see them. There is no middle ground between these two approaches. Either you are willing to follow the evidence or you are not. Creationists are not willing. They can't even create a list of criteria for what a transitional fossil should look like because they know that any reasonable description will describe the fossils we already have, and that can not happen. Those who have followed the evidence come to the conclusion that evolution is responsible for the biodiversity we see today. [/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