Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Why do you think that there should be such evidence?
Here's a helpful suggestion, try to learn more before jumping to bad coclusions.
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.
Why do you think that there should be such evidence?Hello Zone.
Just asking for the fossil evidence for the dragonfly, what is the issue?
Hello Jon.The theory of evolution has passed this process numerous times. Every single falsifiable test it has faced it has passed with flying colors.
It's called the theory of general relativity. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein and that he was wrong? Gravity is pretty well understood. Here is a fun video. You may learn something. It explains gravity in a very simple way:
I thought you said earlier that you aren't a geneticist. But apparently you know more about genetics then them? Have you studied ERVs in depth?
Once again, it is called the theory of general relativity. It is our best explanation for gravity based on experimentation. If you didn't hear, one of relativity's predictions was recently confirmed. (Gravitational waves).
Evolution takes place in populations not individuals. One species will never give birth to another species. This would FALSIFY evolution.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Enough with this PRATT argument.
Is this your tricky way of saying "But its still a dragonfly!"?
Dragonflies are apart of the order Odonata. It poses no problems for evolution.
It's stood up for 150 years. All available data supports evolution and it is contradicted by literally nothing. Considering biomedical research depends on the understanding of evolutionary theory, I find it unlikely it will be falsified.
It does not. Evolution of the dragonfly is well understood. It seems that your response to the abundance of evidence is "No its not" and then you move the goalposts.
Hello Zone.Why do you think that there should be such evidence?
Here's a helpful suggestion, try to learn more before jumping to bad coclusions.
Hello Zone.
Of course I expect to observe the evidence.
If you do not have the evidence, then say so.
Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?I would sure would like to see, the preceding fossil record of the dragonfly. Not a speculative explanation, but the actual evidence.
Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?
I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it. Thank you for adding to my database.When Einstein released his theory, I read somewhere, that only a handful of mathematicians could understand his theory.
Punctuated equilibrium.Sure, that would be nice, but you didn't answer my question: what is your source for the assertion that dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record?
I said to the degree that they ignore or contradict the Bible they can become a religious issue.
Obviously there are theistic evolutionist like perhaps your Pope
who is willing to bend over backwards to accommodate worldly viewpoints in order to retain converts to his denomination.
His proclamation of Christianity means NOTHING if his behavior becomes suspect.
Hello Sub Zone.
The formal definition is above the specific usage of the word within any ideology, regardless of the perceived importance of that ideology.
Only for those people who are of the opinion that they actually contradict the bible.
And as I said, the majority of christians don't think that that is the case.
As for myself, I'm an atheist... so obviously for me there are no religious implications in anything.
"your"?
The Pope is the head/leader of the catholic church. I would have expected that you knew that.
The Pope doesn't feel like he has to bend over backwards, and neither to the majority of christians who have no problems with the natural sciences.
You know why? Because they don't consider the OT to be a science book that documents literal history. That's you.
In other words, you are simply projecting your own bible beliefs unto others.
These things aren't issues for the majority of christians at all. They simply don't feel like there is anything to "reconcile" the bible with, because -again- they don't consider genesis to be a science textbook detailing literal history.
Coming up next: the no-true-scottsman.
That depends on whether their criteria is more valid than the criteria I am using and not on their numerical preponderance which is totally irrelevant to the issue.The argument from popularity fallacy is when you say "it is correct because the majority believes it is".
That's not what I'm saying here.
The only thing I'm saying is that I observe that most christians don't agree with your generalised statement that science is anti-christianity or anti-biblical.
Rather, it is the case that science is contrary to your specific interpretation of christianity, which is an interpretation that most christians simply do not adhere to. Which puts into question your generalised statement.
That is true as far as it goes, but for many of us within the faith there is something called Tradition, which is not based on a "numerical preponderance" but rather is an explanation for it.That depends on whether their criteria is more valid than the criteria I am using and not on their numerical preponderance which is totally irrelevant to the issue.
I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it. Thank you for adding to my database.
This is plain old 'confirmation bias'. Peter Wason did some interesting research on it in the 1960s. There's a plausible explanation for it in Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (p.80-81).I read somewhere that many people are sufficiently lacking in critical thinking that they tend to accept anything they read that confirms their worldview. I wasn't certain that was true, but extensive and careful observation has generally confirmed it.
This is plain old 'confirmation bias'. Peter Wason did some interesting research on it in the 1960s. There's a plausible explanation for it in Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' (p.80-81).
Quite - and the more ways a scientist fails to prove an hypothesis is wrong, the more likely it is that the hypothesis is correct.This reminds me of a debate that I had with a creationist elsewhere. He thought that it was damning when Schweitzer not only found soft tissue, but possible red blood cells as well and he told her "Now try to prove that they aren't red blood cells". In other words he wanted her to do what scientists are supposed to do, to try to find flaws in her work. He thought it meant that she was supposed to prove herself wrong and that she had failed if she couldn't.
A wise scientist will try to prove himself wrong because it is without a doubt that once he or she publishes that others will be trying to prove that scientist wrong.
Is this a SDA doctrine? Because I'm not familiar with it.
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?