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.
History is based on the testimony of people in the observations they have made and is recorded. Evolution is not.
There are no links between the alleged links, and there never can be. That's why the scientist is exasperated at the end of the clip.
And you need exactly that physical evidence if you want reasonable people to accept the claim based on physical evidence.
They tried to make fun of it. They didn't think it through. They achieved the opposite.Again, they are making fun of the "every transition = 2 new gaps" argument. It's a dumb argument.
It's your job to prove your claim.I've found that physical evidence is largely irrelevant in these discussions. If creationists wanted physical evidence, they'd be off combing the scientific literature and reading about it. But in general they don't.
They tried to make fun of it. They didn't think it through. They achieved the opposite.
It's your job to prove your claim.
Evolution is based on the observations people have made and the conclusions they have deduced. How is that any different from a historian studying ancient artifacts, archaeology and so on?
No, incorrect.Creationists often demand evidence for fossil transitions to "prove" evolution. But I've noticed a pattern when presented with evidence for these requests:
1) If it's a finely graduated transition within a specific group of organisms then it's simply accepted as evolution within a "kind".
2) On the other hand if it's broader transitions across higher taxa, then the fossil transitions are rejected as being independently created creatures. Then the demand is made for more finely graduated transitions in between taxa, and it's back to claiming evolution within a "kind".
Basically, there's no way to satisfy these kind of demands because creationists will always reject connecting graduated transitions to transitions across higher taxa. It effect they've left themselves an automatic "out" when it comes to accepting or rejecting fossil evidence and reconciling that evidence within their existing belief system.
Those of the five senses are still trying. But what they have proposed about evolution has now put them in a scientific bind. They have only conjecture to stand on thand fossil record evidence. It is like the Lord Jesus planned to make them learn faith is required, even for geologic matters of the past.God’s spoken word and power is not something that can be contained in a lab and then tested. We accept Him creating our universe by speaking it into existence as a matter of faith, knowing that His words have proven true in all other matters. How can someone ask for a creationist to give another mechanism when the Lord Himself is the mechanism?
Very well said. The truth of a Creator who Creates. No magic. That is an ill viewpoint. And what Naturalism produces.One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.
You don't think that's a reasonable demand? Also, don't you think a kind of catch-22 exists for evolution, since every time you identify something as a transitional fossil you create two new gaps between transitions, where there used to be one? And the next discovery creates four, and so on. Like a Zeno's paradox, the search for demonstrable transition could go on forever.
And yet how can we provide a tangible mechanism when one believes that the Lord and His word are that mechanism and the other believes he does not exist?
God’s spoken word and power is not something that can be contained in a lab and then tested.
We accept Him creating our universe by speaking it into existence as a matter of faith, knowing that His words have proven true in all other matters. How can someone ask for a creationist to give another mechanism when the Lord Himself is the mechanism?
One of the other members said earlier “supernatural “ and was told they meant “magic.” I say the mechanism is that the Lord spoke and there it was. How is that different? I can show you with the immaculate conception of Jesus. There was no sperm and yet Jesus was conceived. Again, something from nothing. However, because matter now exists, it cannot be re-demonstrated as a process of “something from nothing” when we are talking about large scale creation. God put the natural processes we see into order.
You have forgotten that there are many Christian scientists who believe in God but do not believe that He created living things directly in their present form.
But that stems from me associating creation with the canopy theory also.
Wow, I'd forgotten all about 'canopy theory'. I seem to remember Hovind advocating for that back in the day. Although I've noticed Hovind-style arguments have fallen out of favor which is probably not a surprise given his imprisonment.
There are no links between the alleged links, and there never can be. That's why the scientist is exasperated at the end of the clip. And you need exactly that physical evidence if you want reasonable people to accept the claim based on physical evidence.
You have not even got your own religion right. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary, the mother of Christ, was conceived without sin and her conception was thus immaculate - http://www.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/immaculateconception.shtml . It is quite different from the doctrine of the Virgin Birth of Jesus.
It is interesting that this matter is discussed in Chapter 3 of Donald R. Prothero's book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. On pages 78-80 the author explains Ernst Mayr's 'allopatric speciation model' in which 'small isolated populations on the fringes of the main population [are] the likeliest sources of new species.' This model is now generally accepted by biologists.
In 1972 Eldredge and Gould applied the allopatric speciation model to the fossil record, and found that if it is correct scientists should 'not expect to see the gradual transitions between species preserved very often; instead, they would expect to see new species when they immigrate back into the main population after their isolation and speciation event. In other words, they would appear suddenly in the fossil record', exactly as is observed.
You ought to read the book; it would help you to understand the relationship between the fossil record and evolution.
This has me interested. I looked at the wiki for it but I'd like to read the book also. I'm curious to find out if a new species formed out of this process can still reproduce and continue the process or re-reproduce with the parent species?
According to Prothero (page 80), members of the newly formed species can reproduce with other members of the same species, but not with the main population (the parent species).
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?