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.
You need to do some more reading on the subject if the word fact seems controversial to you.I see that along with all the other definitions changing the word "fact" must have changed also.
Poe?This argument challenges one of the foundations of the Evolutionary worldview, that the order fossil animal groups in the earth point to Evolution as an explanation.
The Evolution of different life on earth is a story that could be told in many highly contrasting ways. Evolution is really more of an open ended genre than a specific account of how life supposedly evolved.
You could essentially randomize the fossil orderings of major animal groups and afterwards still be able to construct continuous Evolutionary trees out of them to paint a picture of universal common descent.
A simple way to visualize this is to reverse a supposed transitional fossil sequence... For example, picture a bird losing its wings and feathers and gradually evolving into a therapod-like dinosaur. You could flip the sequence of bird and therapod fossils and still make up an Evolutionary narrative for it.
But that was just something basic for demonstration. You could shift all kinds of fossil sequences around and still be able to write up Evolutionary stories about how one thing evolved from the other. Mammals could co-evolve alongside amphibians. Birds could be placed closer to mammals than reptiles. The amount of different Evolution stories you could write up based on different fossil sequences would be nearly endless.
The only real constraint would be to probably have lots of small stuff at the bottom layers. (primordial creatures that generate a list of different animal phyla that the more advanced forms can be said to have descended from) ... but that isn't much of a test of anything because you always find those types of creatures in the deepest parts of the earth for purely physical reasons, regardless of models of earth-history.
If there were any problematic fossil gaps or anachronisms left over (i.e. some transitional fossils sequences seem out of order) they can more than likely be solved in the same manner they are now. Attributing them to "Ghost Lineages" would be a versatile solution. Fossilization is quite rare, after all. (Also hard to find much reliability with molecular clocks, because they often break.)
This demonstrates how Evolution is really a metaphysical idea that can be projected onto almost any kind of data set found in nature. It is not a theory formed by evidence.
A theoretical model of Evolutionary origins of a planet's biodiversity would practically always be possible, regardless of the data set. There aren't any real physical checks preventing Evolutionists from writing up a flexible narrative of how life evolved.
*edit: added visual aid*
In Darwin's time, while the overall image of the fossil record was blurry and lacked resolution, the basic pattern and structure was well established. (small marine creatures at the bottom, an "age of reptiles" in the middle, and bigger mammals on top) ... Since then there has been an increasing resolution of that image.
More fundamentally speaking, this is just a simple matter of logic. One cannot possibly predict *how* Evolution might have worked on the history of a planet... Whose to say that drastically varied environmental pressures might not have produced mammals before dinosaurs? It's impossible to predict.
So all that's really taken place is a fining-up of resolution of the pattern of fossils.
This is why the original low-resolution image of the fossil record could have been practically anything, and a corresponding evolutionary story could have been written to try and explain it.
Whose personal interpretation should I conflate It with then?
Academias?
I'd rather eat glue first.
Oh, so now I incorporate poetic phrases from the Bible into my cosmology?
Anything else you think I do, that I don't?
How would you know it's right, if it was?I don't know whose you should go by. The problem is that if the Christian God did make the world, and God cannot lie, then your interpretation can be shown to be as wrong as that of a person that believes in the Flat Earth.
Because it is testable. As are many of the claims of creationists.How would you know it's right, if it was?
No, it isn't.Because it is testable.
Because the Earth isn't flat.How do we know that Flat Earthers are wrong?
You forgot something. You claimed that God does not lie. One looks and see what the evidence that he made looks like. False evidence is a form of lying.No, it isn't.
You can't test an object that appears ex nihilo.
Let alone one that appeared ex nihilo in 4004 BC.
That's why they're called "miracles."
Then by your standards we know that your interpretation is wrong because life is the product of evolution.Because the Earth isn't flat.
But you were told not to look at the "rudiments of the world," weren't you?You forgot something. You claimed that God does not lie. One looks and see what the evidence that he made looks like. False evidence is a form of lying.
Not in Genesis 1, it wasn't.Then by your standards we know that your interpretation is wrong because life is the product of evolution.
Nope, I was never told that. Many other Christians weren't "told that" either. Worse yet creationists are still calling their God a liar. I don't think that the Ostrich Defense would work in the after life.But you were told not to look at the "rudiments of the world," weren't you?
In fact, Paul said, "beware".
So if academia ignores that warning and does it anyway, then they can't claim it was God's fault, can they?
Not in Genesis 1, it wasn't.
And what "product of evolution" did the angels come from?
And what "product of evolution" did God come from?
Put another way, which came first? life or evolution?
Abiogenesis was a process.Technically evolution did not begin until after life began. "Before life" would have been abiogenesis.
That is merely your interpretation of the Bible. Once again since the evidence clearly refutes this and God would have had to have made the evidence it makes your beliefs rather blasphemic.Abiogenesis was a process.
Adam was not created by this process.
God spoke, and Adam appeared.
Lamarckian inheritance is perfectly naturalistic. It just happens to be contradicted by the facts, so it has been rightly discarded as a potential theory of biology.
You still haven't told us what your story is. You don't like the idea that God lets nature do the heavy lifting. How do you think it works?What's your point? Of course alternative evolutionary models can be cast aside, as long as there's at least one established as dogma. The important thing is that "Nature did it", some way or another.
Lamarckism was discarded, just like the gene-centric Neo-Darwinism model that has dominated the last 50 years is now in the process of being overhauled(including reintroducing some Lamarckian concepts)
All that matters is that, at the end of the day, there is a "Nature did it" cosmology to fall back on. That is the root creation ideology from which more specific evolution theories and models spring out of.
For a demonstration, just look at the "science" of Origin of Life / Abiogenesis studies... even when there isn't a believable story to tell, the sciences revert back to that ideological foundation: Nature did it.
Let's watch the false accusations. If you claim "dogma" the burden of proof is upon you to prove it.What's your point? Of course alternative evolutionary models can be cast aside, as long as there's at least one established as dogma. The important thing is that "Nature did it", some way or another.
Lamarckism was discarded, just like the gene-centric Neo-Darwinism model that has dominated the last 50 years is now in the process of being overhauled(including reintroducing some Lamarckian concepts)
All that matters is that, at the end of the day, there is a "Nature did it" cosmology to fall back on. That is the root creation ideology from which more specific evolution theories and models spring out of.
For a demonstration, just look at the "science" of Origin of Life / Abiogenesis studies... even when there isn't a believable story to tell, the sciences revert back to that ideological foundation: Nature did it.
Jesus will come soon and make sure it catches up.Science is always in the process of getting closer and closer to the correct answer.
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?