Evolution and special creation?

[AlphaBravo]

Yes. It has been observed in both nature as well as in the lab. One example would be speciation -- something nearly all of the major YEC organizations now acknowledge takes place. Speciation is actually an example of macroevolution which by definition is evolution at or above the species level.

Snark mode on...

Wow, you're an eager beaver. Your rebutting your own rebuttal.

Biological evolution, which is what the ToE addresses, has nothing to do with the origin of life.

So how does repeating yourself advance the argument?

...snark mode off.

[AlphaBravo]

What archaeological evidence would you expect to see of a monotheistic tradition like the one described in the text?
1. From Adam to Noah the fidelity of only a single family line is accounted for.
2. From Noah to Abraham, only the bedouin Abraham is mentioned and also the tradition of Job, (ie simple tent dwellers and herdsmen).
3. From Abraham to Jacob there is apparently only one observant family (still tent dwellers).
4. From Jacob to Moses the fledgling nation lives among the polytheistic Egyptians and without a written code of their own laws and religious observances.
5. From Moses through the Judges the nation is plagued with polytheism. Monotheistic worship was marked by a single tent with a holy "box" in it.
6. Through the kingdom the nation continues to be swamped in polytheism so that the written law is lost and the prophet Elijah believes that he alone is the only remaining adherent.
7. The tradition and law of the monotheists prohibited the engraving of images or even the cutting of stones to be used in an altar.
8. The superstition of the monotheists discouraged them from speaking, much less writing the name of the monotheistic god.

I would expect the same archaeological evidence as is found after the adoption of monotheism, of course. And it's not there. In its place, we find archaeological evidence of an evolving religious tradition that led from henotheism to monolatry inside a limited polytheism culminating finally in monotheism following the release of the Jews from Babylon.

Fair enough. Perhaps time will tell differently. In the meantime, the reasons I have stated will stand as reason enough to accept the written account as consistent with the archaeological record.

[AlphaBravo]

Bet you didn't think I could provide an answer to your snarky question, did you?

You all seem pleased with your snarky answer. If you really want to impress me why don't you address the obvious point of my question rather than feigning ignorance.

[AlphaBravo]

I assume, since you've moved on to other topics, that the clarification and explanation posts on page 8 and 9 were suffcient to answer your request for clarity regarding transitional fossils?

Yes, Phank added something to the discussion. I think your responses tho sound more like a high school science teacher doing damage control and toeing the party line.

The condition of the fossil record and the problem that this poses to gradualism is well documented. If you are all going to feign ignorance over two pages of rebuttals then there is not much point in pursuing it. Spend your red herrings and straw men on someone else.

[rogue06]

Snark mode on...

Wow, you're an eager beaver. Your rebutting your own rebuttal.

Do tell


No, seriously. How does that, as you say, rebut my own rebuttal?

[rogue06]

You all seem pleased with your snarky answer. If you really want to impress me why don't you address the obvious point of my question rather than feigning ignorance.

Rogue's excel in snarkiness. That's why I can recognize it so easily.

Moreover, my answer was a very direct as well as correct. Just low on detail. You had asked "what year we reached the point where there was no marked absence of transitional fossils." 1861 was the year the first Archaeopteryx was discovered thus ending the "absence of transitional fossils."

[rogue06]

Yes, Phank added something to the discussion. I think your responses tho sound more like a high school science teacher doing damage control and toeing the party line.

Or talking to someone who is clueless about the topic.

The condition of the fossil record and the problem that this poses to gradualism is well documented. If you are all going to feign ignorance over two pages of rebuttals then there is not much point in pursuing it. Spend your red herrings and straw men on someone else.

Yup. Clueless.

[phank]

The condition of the fossil record and the problem that this poses to gradualism is well documented.

Nothing in the fossil record poses any problem to the theory of evolution. If it did, the theory would be obliged to change to fit the data. However, I have seen the fairly common technique of attributing to the theory something it does not say, and then refuting that attribution (easy, since the attribution is incorrect), and THEN implying that something must be wrong with the theory.

In this case, if "gradualism" (whatever is intended by that term) is inconsistent with a proper understanding of the fossil record, then "gradualism" must be discarded or redefined to fit the data. In science, theories describe and explain data. Not the other way around.

[magellan004]

Well it's a very strange question, and probably didn't come from any real sense of wanting to know. But one advantage of death is that if everything just multiplies all fruitful like, and nothing ever dies, it'd be insanely crowded. Also, organisms require nutrition to live. Things must die for that.

So the problem with immortality is crowding. LOL.


Immortal creatures require nutrition to survive . LOL.

Look, I know you are wet behind the ears, and I believe you are willing to learn. Just drop the bravado front and we will get on swimimingly - as the British would say.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Sure we can. Right after life arose.

Evolution happens because the chemistry of DNA makes evolution unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly. Any time you have imperfect self-replicators in an environment of limited resources, the result is a tendency of those best suited to acquire and use the resources to produce more offspring. The result is that each generation is a little different from the one before it.

God commanded all life to be "Fruitful and Multiply." However, as thousands of species, including microbes, bacteria, insects... obeyed this command and reproduced unchecked (without physical death), the world would soon be enveloped in a terrible mass of exponentially exploding populations. There are species of bacteria that reproduce roughly every 20 minutes. Left unchecked the planet would be covered in bacteria in something like a month (and IIRC fill the universe in a thousand years or so). One estimate has rabbits reproducing to the point that they would constitute a mass that outweighs the entire planet in 50 years. Even if it doesn’t get quite that bad you are soon faced with an extraordinary Catch-22 in that very quickly the organisms wouldn’t have any food to eat, nor space in which to live, and yet no ability to die. This is not only ludicrous logical paradox; it appears to be directly at odds with God's stated plan for a "good" creation.

Thank you for your reply - and for not insulting.

You give no sources for your assertion that 'the chemistry of DNA makes evolution unavoidable due to the fact that DNA doesn't replicate perfectly.' And you imply that DNA is beyond the forces of evolution. In other words you are saying that the first life had DNA the same as now. At the start of life (according to the swamp-goo theory of life) the notion of scarcity would have been as fictional as the modern economic notion of scarcity of resources is nowadays. There has always been 'buckets of money out there'.

Magellan
,

[Tiggy]

So the problem with immortality is crowding. LOL.


Immortal creatures require nutrition to survive . LOL.

Look, I know you are wet behind the ears, and I believe you are willing to learn. Just drop the bravado front and we will get on swimimingly - as the British would say.

Magellan

"pinheadpumps"



- T