Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: anil dahar
Post Volume: Total: 919,519 Year: 6,776/9,624 Month: 116/238 Week: 33/83 Day: 3/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Stile
Member (Idle past 304 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 421 of 1385 (850297)
04-05-2019 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 406 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:18 AM


Dredge writes:
Please cite a scientific paper or article that specifically describes a practical use for "the theory of evolution".
No, that's unreasonable. Don't be silly.
That's like asking for a scientific paper that specifically describes the practical use of transistors in electronics.
If you don't believe the in-your-face electronics that use transistors everyday - you're not going to believe a scientific paper.
If you don't believe the in-your-face practical uses for the theory of evolution everyday (like medicine) - you're not going to believe a scientific paper.
But keep up your song and dance, it's still entertaining to my childish nature to watch you embarrassingly squirm so much.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:18 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:25 AM Stile has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 422 of 1385 (850308)
04-06-2019 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Tangle
04-04-2019 3:30 AM


Religionists love picking at definitions because they can't pick at the facts. They think that by mangling the words, the facts will change.
Actually, they do think that.
Dan Barker described Christian fundamentalism (in which he had grown up) as "when your theology becomes your psychology." That is why they need an entirely different and separate set of counselors than we normals do.
The problem lies in theology. There it's the words that matter, not reality. We mere normals use words to try to describe and explain what we see, whereas the theists use words to create new realities.
It's almost as if they are thinking like lawyers, looking for every little possible twist with which they could create a new reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 3:30 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:29 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 423 of 1385 (850310)
04-06-2019 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 386 by Dredge
04-04-2019 2:33 AM


Re: Pills
Dredge writes:
DWise1 writes:
And you are just yet another fucking creationist idiot
Are you now embarrassed by this petulant comment? I would be.
No you wouldn't be embarrassed and you know full well that you never would. You are a CREATIONIST, for cryin' out loud! You lie about everything you can and NEVER HAVE ANY SHAME ABOUT YOUR LIES AND DECEPTIONS! Trust me; I've been dealing with you creationists and your slimy ways since the late 1980's.
If you have changed since then, please let us know. No, I didn't expect that you would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 386 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2019 2:33 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 2:34 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 1118 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(6)
Message 424 of 1385 (850334)
04-06-2019 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Dredge
04-05-2019 3:21 AM


It seems most tudents of biology have been indoctrinated to believe mendacious nonsense
Obviously you can dismiss what students of biology have been taught as "indoctrination," just as students of medicine are "indoctrinated" and students of theology are "indoctrinated." It makes for an easy way to dismiss opposing arguments. A better, and more honest approach would be to understand what biology students are being taught and why. Those of us that are students or already have advanced degrees should know what is being taught in biology classes regardless of what you claim we are being taught. Being educated about a subject hardly counts as indoctrination - even if you disagree with the premises or conclusions.
"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and "Evolution is the unifying theory of all biology."
These statements are not regarded as factual, but judgments based on the contribution the theory of evolution has made to our understanding of biological systems. It is certainly possible for a Creationist (or whatever variation of evolution denier you prefer) to work in a biological field, and even be quite successful, all the while denying the theory of evolution. However, they are standing on the backs of countless scientists who went before them and developed our current knowledge based on the theory of evolution. I know of NO significant advancement in knowledge put forth by adherents to the "theory of creationism"... since there is no such thing. (Actually the "theory of creationism" states that the theory of evolution is wrong and all who accept it are atheists). All creationists do is attempt to devalue the theory of evolution by employing misinformation and outright falsehoods.
They seem to think if we don't believe all life on earth evolved from microbes, the science of biology will be rendered useless.
Case in point! This is a false and misleading characterization of what evolutionary biologists "think." What we actually "think" is that if we were to give up conclusions based on evidence and accept conclusion based on religious ideology, biological sciences, and indeed sciences as a whole, would be rendered useless.
I am going to try to explain why the theory of evolution has such value to biological science and why we consider the ToE to be the "unifying theory of all biology." But first, about the question in the OP... it really doesn't matter if there is a single universal common ancestor or multiple ancestral populations - that has little to do with the ToE itself. Currently, we would say that it seems as if all life on earth have their origins in a single common ancestor - but if that is shown to be wrong, that is not an issue for the ToE. That said, I hope to make a case for how the concept of common descent is useful (and indeed a central concept) in biological science.
It seems to me as if you have a misunderstanding of what a theory is, why we have theories and how we use them to further scientific research. In order to make my point here, I am going to use the germ theory of disease (GT) as an example. Before the GT was developed, there was all kinds of wacky ideas about what caused disease. Angry and vengeful gods inflicted disease on rebellious persons, the four humors, evil night air, spontaneous generation etc. The GT gave us a framework with which to explain the cause of disease. No longer do we have to test all these alternate hypotheses about the cause of disease, we go straight to the germ theory and expect that disease is caused by some type of microorganism. Follow me so far? The GT gave us a framework that allows us to automatically reject discredited hypotheses and follow an hypothesis that can lead to curative treatments.
But wait! Hasn't the germ theory of disease been disproven? There are diseases that are genetic with no microbe association (ie. Down syndrome) and diseases that are caused nutrient deficiencies (ie. scurvy). So this disproves the GT right? Nope. We have learned to recognize the symptoms of the various types of diseases and can test for which category any particular disease belongs.
In the same way, the theory of evolution provides us with a framework by which we can reject failed hypotheses about how organisms change over time and allows us to focus on research that works. This is a really important aspect of scientific theories, they offer a cohesive explanation of the facts that allow us to immediately apply that framework to a question.
For example, my daughter and I have a good natured argument about the reality of mermaids. Her claim is that since we have not explored but a small proportion of the ocean we can't say for certain that mermaids don't exist. My argument is that I know mermaids don't exist because they would not fit anywhere on the tree of life. While this is kind of a silly example, it illustrates the concept of the predictive power that the ToE has. If I discover a new organism, I don't wonder if it was created yesterday... I know, based on the theory of evolution, that it has an ancestral population. When I study a group of species, I know, based on the ToE, that they share a common ancestor and the examination of how they are related can give insight into how they evolved, how traits are regulated, how they utilize resources, etc. Believe it or not, this idea of relatedness forms the foundation of most biological inquiries.
Your idea is that every genus is specially created (or whatever your position is specifically) and that this idea explains observations just as well as the ToE. That's like saying that the idea of a painted dome above the earth explains why the sky is blue. I mean, yea it does explain it... but the explanation doesn't provide any predictive power. What predictive power does special creation have that allows us to better understand life on earth? What objective criteria do you use to determine if two organisms share a common ancestor or not? What advantage would a theory of special creation have over the current theory?
Summary: While the specifics of a universal common ancestor may not be particularly useful to biology, the concept of common descent is - in fact, it is central to biological studies. Biology relies on the concept of common ancestry to allow comparisons between organisms and to narrow down the search field to those comparisons that would provide the most likely chance of answering the question. Currently, there are no groups that are know to NOT share a common ancestor. Discovering that 2 or more groups do not share a common ancestor would have little effect on the ToE, but would introduce some caveats and not allow direct comparison between those groups.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2019 3:21 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Faith, posted 04-07-2019 7:30 PM herebedragons has replied
 Message 462 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:21 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 425 of 1385 (850382)
04-07-2019 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by Tangle
04-04-2019 4:16 AM


Tangle writes:
The principles of evolution make up the Theory of Evolution. They are part and parcel of the same thing. THE SAME THING.
You are confusing my fragile, eggshell mind. Are you saying the principles are part of the theory (in which case they are not the same thing, as the principles are a subset of the theory), or are you saying the principles and the theory are the same thing?
If the latter, then you have company: Douglas J. Futuyma says, "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution."
That link gives you links to many other papers, the first of which is the one I've shown you twice now which provides practical scientific example of its use. Did you notice that the first paragraph actually uses the precise words your so hung up on and say never appear?
The Wiki article says, "Creationists often claim that THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION lacks any practical applications; however, this claim has been refuted by scientists."
Okay. Thanks for that. I can no longer say articles that detail practical uses for ToE can't be found.
But on the other hand, this bloke would seem to disagee: "evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically ... none of the progress in biology depends even slightly on a theory" - Louis Bouroune (Professor of Biology, University of Strasbourg), Determinism and Finality, 1957, p.79.
So no wonder scientists can't agree on a definitive definition of the theory of evolution - it seems they can't even agree on what a theory is.
At a basic level the ToE is not hard to understand.
I know - I've understood the basics of ToE since it was taught to me when I was thirteen
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2019 4:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 2:52 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 426 of 1385 (850384)
04-07-2019 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:32 AM


Tangle writes:
Dredge writes:
So you agree with Berkeley Uni when it says "The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor"?
Tangle writes:
For fuck's sake, Dredge, Berkeley are trying to reduce a complex scientific concept into a publicly understandable sound bite."
In that case, Berkeley has decided that their sound bite should present the concept of UCA as the "CENTRAL IDEA OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION".
This is very different to your approach - you don't include UCA in your definition at all. Interesting.
None of these definitions make any difference to me or to biological science; I just find it a bit odd that a definitive definitiion for ToE doesn't exist and that opinions vary so much.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:32 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 427 of 1385 (850386)
04-07-2019 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:22 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Tangle writes:
Can you show what difference there is between 'progressive creation' and evolution please.
Progressive creation or PC (which is not the same as theistic evolution, btw) actually has a lot in common with Darwinian evolution:
- PC accepts that the history of life on earth is one of profound changes that could be loosely described as evolution.
- it accepts the same sequence of organisms found in the fossil record as Darwinism does
- it accepts that life on earth could be billions of years old.
- PC also accepts that evolution at the species level ("empirical evolution") can be explained by natural processes (ToE).
But here is where PC departs from Darwinism - it doesn't accept that ToE (or any form of science, for that matter) can explain the history of life on earth.
Whales may well have descended from some kind of rodent, for example, but the large morphological changes involved were not the result of natural processes, but of divine creation.
The genetic similarities evident across all organisms can be explained thusly: The Bible says God made all creatures from "the earth" - ie, inanimate matter. After the first organisms (bacteria) were made, their DNA (inanimate matter) was used to create the next creatures in the "evolutionary" sequence (above the level of species, that is) ... and so on, all the way down the line until the present age. Thus, all organisms are genetically related.
There are slightly different versions of progressive creation, but this is mine.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 3:05 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2019 8:19 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 428 of 1385 (850387)
04-07-2019 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by ringo
04-04-2019 11:46 AM


Ringo writes:
I have asked you to back up your claim that there is no use for UCA.
Except that is not my claim. Read the OP.
You have been shown that your claim is nonsense.
Sorry, I somehow missed those bits.
If you're too dense to see what you've been shown ...
My fragile, eggshell mind does have its limitations. But please be aware that my IQ has been evaluated at 11 (ie, a double figure, which is not too shabby).
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by ringo, posted 04-04-2019 11:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by ringo, posted 04-07-2019 2:25 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 429 of 1385 (850388)
04-07-2019 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 395 by edge
04-04-2019 11:50 AM


edge writes:
I find the theory of evolution useful in explainin the data I see in the geological record, but that means exactly nothing to Dredge.
I find the theory of creation useful in explaining the data I see in the geological record, but that means exactly nothing to edge.
edge writes:
I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data I see in the geological record, but that means exactly nothing to Dredge.
Not just to Dredge ... it means exactly nothing to applied science as well.
edge writes:
I find the theory of evolution useful in explaining the data I see in the geological record, but that means exactly nothing to Dredge.
Someone might find the theory of alien experiments on various organisms useful in explaining the data they see in the geological record, but that means exactly nothing to nearly everyone.
they invoke denial
What am I denying? I've forgotten.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by edge, posted 04-04-2019 11:50 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 10:03 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 430 of 1385 (850389)
04-07-2019 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Tanypteryx
04-04-2019 8:37 PM


Tanypteryx writes:
Dredge seems to think that a definition of one or two sentences should include everything. He also mistakenly thinks the definition of the theory of evolution is the theory of evolution.
No, that's an anachronism. Don't you remember explaining to me that a definiton of a theory is a merely a simple and concise outline of a theory that doesn't include all the details of the theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-04-2019 8:37 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 431 of 1385 (850390)
04-07-2019 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Dogmafood
04-04-2019 8:48 PM


ProtoTypical writes:
Do you know how to use a theory?
I think so ... a theory is an explanation of observed facts.
Can you provide an example of any theory having a practical use?
Yes ... if Douglas J. Futuyma's definition of ToE is anthing to go by:
"The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution ... In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. "
Can you provide an example of a theory that does not incorporate the principals that it attempts to explain?
No.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2019 8:48 PM Dogmafood has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 432 of 1385 (850391)
04-07-2019 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 425 by Dredge
04-07-2019 1:38 AM


Dredge writes:
You are confusing my fragile, eggshell mind.
I don't think so. You're simply trolling now.
Are you saying the principles are part of the theory (in which case they are not the same thing, as the principles are a subset of the theory), or are you saying the principles and the theory are the same thing?
Either, both, I really don't care - it makes no difference. Think of Father, Son, Holy Ghost - Trinity - if it helps you.
If the latter, then you have company: Douglas J. Futuyma says, "The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution."
I'm not interested in farting around with pointless word juggling. It should be clear to you by now what the components of the ToE are, if it isn't you're either an idiot or a troll but more likely both.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:38 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:39 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9583
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 433 of 1385 (850392)
04-07-2019 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by Dredge
04-07-2019 1:59 AM


Re: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?
Dredge writes:
Progressive creation or PC (which is not the same as theistic evolution, btw) actually has a lot in common with Darwinian evolution:
- PC accepts that the history of life on earth is one of profound changes that could be loosely described as evolution.
- it accepts the same sequence of organisms found in the fossil record as Darwinism does
- it accepts that life on earth could be billions of years old.
- PC also accepts that evolution at the species level ("empirical evolution") can be explained by natural processes (ToE).
In other words, it's the ToE
Whales may well have descended from some kind of rodent, for example, but the large morphological changes involved were not the result of natural processes, but of divine creation.
Ah. Maybe not. Are you saying that process of evolving from 'some kind of rodent' to moden whales required your god to intervene at each/every stage?
But here is where PC departs from Darwinism - it doesn't accept that ToE (or any form of science, for that matter) can explain the history of life on earth.
In other words you can't accept the ToE for religious reasons but can't deny the evidence for the ToE. Cake and eat it eh?
.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by Dredge, posted 04-07-2019 1:59 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Dredge, posted 04-10-2019 3:31 AM Tangle has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 434 of 1385 (850393)
04-07-2019 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:
I'm disappointed to say that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists are not atheists.
Please excuse me while I do this ... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
I love your continued quoting mining of Gould as though he supported the creationists arguments
Gould supported creationist arguments? Oh dear, here it comes again ... HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
I reason I often quote Gould is, he seemed to be one of the few evolutionist scientists who was willing to talk honestly about the fossil record. If it wasn't for scientists like him, the scientific community would probably still be pushing the myth that the fossil record supports Dawin's theory of gradualism. Gould et al let the cat out the bag:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ...
We (paleontologists) fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favoured account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. " S. J. Gould, The Panda's Thumb.
"Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually non-existent in the fossil record" - Wikipedia, "Punctuated equilibrium".
"Gould was known as an outspoken opponent of creationism. Of it, he said "The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream.""
"the evangelical right" refers to YECism, which is not my position. I accept the same age of life on earth and the same fossil record as Gould did.
Source please.
"A lot can happen in 40 million years, the approximate length of the Cambrian Period. Animals showed dramatic diversification during this period of Earth's history. This has been called the "Cambrian Explosion". When the fossil record is scrutinized closely, it turns out that the fastest growth in the number of major new animal groups took place during the as-yet-unnamed second and third stages (generally known as the Tommotian and Atdabanian stages) of the early Cambrian, a period of about 13 million years." (ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian)
"Cambrian explosion, the unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago." (Encyclopaedia Britannica)
But I accept that there are differing views on the length of the Cambrian explosion. Gould refers to it as "the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years" but others say as much as thirty million years.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2019 3:38 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2855
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 435 of 1385 (850394)
04-07-2019 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by Tangle
04-05-2019 3:16 AM


Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Tangle writes:
Though there is some scientific debate about what fossil strata should mark the beginning of the period, the International Geological Congress places the lower boundary of the period at 543 million years ago with the first appearance in the fossil record of worms that made horizontal burrows. The end of the Cambrian Period is marked by evidence in the fossil record of a mass extinction event about 490 million years ago.
Please be advised that his quote deals with the time-frame of the Cambrian "Period", not the Cambrian "explosion".
Biologists do not have a problem with these numbers - evolution sometimes appears to take place “rapidly” with long periods of relative statis.
This creationist does not have a problem with these numbers - creation sometimes appears to take place "rapidly" with long periods of stasis.
I'm qualified to point out the inconsistency of your argument of how he did it. Creation neither started nor ended in the Cambrian. Nor did it create the species we see today - including man.
None of these facts are inconsistent with my creation model. Creation unfolded progressively over billions of years - it could easily be mistaken for evolution, as that is what the overall picture looks like.
That's what you say; I say that none of the stories in the bible are literal. I don't pick and mix.
The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is a mixture of both figurative and literal language. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, "Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as succession of six days of "work"" (#337).
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2019 3:16 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by edge, posted 04-07-2019 11:45 AM Dredge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024