User Tag List

Page 7 of 116 FirstFirst ... 456789101757107 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 1739

Thread: Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

  1. #91
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    You are being dishonest.
    No one cares about your counter-accusations. You can do better and eventually get some respect or you can persist in your behavior and go on as you are.

    Those are your choices. Choose wisely.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  2. #92
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by iouae View Post
    Thanks for the comprehensive post Barbarian.

    I have no axe to grind one way or the other whether there are fossils in Romer's gap or not.

    I personally do not believe the taphonomy excuse, that fossils just did not preserve well in Romers gap, or the fossils are yet to be found.
    I'm looking at it from the perspective of a lifetime in biology. When I started out there were no transitional forms for whales, turtles, birds, frogs, land vertebrates, ants, termites... (very long list) and now we have them for all of these. The fossil record is spotty and until we figure out where to look, we overlook a lot of things.

    I have a few doubts about Pederpes, since the link you gave says "Pederpes was discovered in 1971 in central Scotland and classified as a lobe-finned fish." Maybe they were right the first time and it is a lobe-finned fish.
    At that point, the difference is very tiny. Acanthostega, for example, has limbs like any tetrapod, but is clearly a fish. The whole point is that if evolution wasn't a fact, we wouldn't have these transitionals. Even more to the point, the fact that we don't see transitionals where they shouldn't be is powerful evidence for what transitionals are.

    All later land tetrapods have pentadactyly or 5 toes, this one 6.
    The lobed-fin fishes found so far, have been variable. So another example of transitional features.

    "Carboniferous tetrapods[edit]
    See also: Carboniferous tetrapod
    Until the 1990s, there was a 30 million year gap in the fossil record between the late Devonian tetrapods and the reappearance of tetrapod fossils in recognizable mid-Carboniferous amphibian lineages. It was referred to as "Romer's Gap", which now covers the period from about 360 to 345 million years ago (the Devonian-Carboniferous transition and the early Mississippian), after the palaeontologist who recognized it.

    During the "gap", tetrapod backbones developed, as did limbs with digits and other adaptations for terrestrial life. Ears, skulls and vertebral columns all underwent changes too. The number of digits on hands and feet became standardized at five, as lineages with more digits died out. Thus, those very few tetrapod fossils found in this "gap" are all the more prized by palaeontologists because they document these significant changes and clarify their history."


    My belief is that there were certain times in the geologic column, that God experimented, whenever there would be a big change and the new organisms might need a tweak. For instance I see the Ediacarans, possibly those in the Romer Gap, and certainly Pleistocene Hominids as God experimenting to get some new animal functioning correctly. Not a person on this forum agrees with me that God needs to experiment, or believes that God is a Scientist, and sometimes learns from failures too. What others think does not trouble me.
    I get that. I don't agree with you, but you're logically consistent. What puzzles me is that your view is much more consistent with evolution than YE creationism can be.

    In the end, I believe John 1:3 that every plant and animal was created by Jesus. I differ from YEC in that I add "not just 6000 years ago, but at different times in the geological past". To me, every fossil just adds to the glory of God. If this present biome was not great enough, 99% has died out and can only be admired as fossils.
    In the 1700s, when it became clear that a six-day creation a few thousand years ago could not be true, scientists (who were then almost entirely theists) had much the same opinions as you have.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    iouae (December 13th, 2017)

  4. #93
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,599
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 2,064 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1367983
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian
    No one cares about your counter-accusations.
    You may or may not care... But if you continue with dishonest comments on what Kurt Wise says... I will continue posting his actual words. Wise does not believe in "intermediate forms", and calls the word 'transitional' an ambiguous word. He actually says that there are interpretations of fossils that can be understood to support macroevolution... But, "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis", and that fossil evidence often better fits the Biblical account.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  6. #94
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,540
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 461 Times in 329 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    244593
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    You may or may not care... But if you continue with dishonest comments on what Kurt Wise says... I will continue posting his actual words. Wise does not believe in "intermediate forms", and calls the word 'transitional' an ambiguous word. He actually says that there are interpretations of fossils that can be understood to support macroevolution... But, "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis", and that fossil evidence often better fits the Biblical account.
    If that is true, why do we never find the remains of modern animals (i.e. horses, cattle, dogs, humans, etc) in the same bone beds that we find dinosaur bones in?
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to CabinetMaker For Your Post:

    User Name (December 13th, 2017)

  8. #95
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    On the diagram showing the spider family tree, what's supposed to be off the left side of the page and what sits at the first two branches? Where's the creature that's sort of a horse shoe crap and sort of a sea spider but not really either one? Was there ever a creature that didn't have eight legs and slowly but surely turned into a creature that does have eight legs?
    There's a lot of fossils not shown here. I'll see what I can find. The important thing is that morphology is not always a good guide to descent. King crabs, for example, are genetically closer relatives to hermit crabs than to other "crab-looking crabs."

    And because tagmosis is the way that arthropod body plans change, loss of legs is relatively simple, with changes in homeotic genes governing development. The ur-arthropod would have been something like a centipede, with little difference in each biramous segment.

    By "biramous" I mean that each segment would have a pair of gills and a pair of legs. The evidence shows that gills were largely lost in terrestrial arthropods, but one or two pair became wings. And yes, there are transitional forms like stoneflies.



    Tagmosis reduces the number of segments, and alters the development of appendages. In spiders, the cephalothorax is comprised of a number of body segments, greatly altered. The chelae and pedipalps are modified legs, each with their own (no longer distiguishable) body segment.

    Again, I really am not trying to focus on spiders here. It's just turned into a convenient avenue to go down toward the final destination.
    Like chordates, they are bilaterans, and the Hox genes are related in many ways to those of chordates.

    Also, notice that there is DNA for legs or there isn't, right?
    Yes. But those genes are modified by developmental genes for each segment. So the appendages might be legs in one segment and chelae in others, and not developed at all in others. It's kinda like phalanges in vertebrates. There's no code directly specifying how many digits a vertebrate has. The limb bud, in development, has a bit of tissue that grows and hooks across the front of the bud. As it goes across, it pops out digits. The length of time it takes to do that determines how many, and that is determined by other genes that mediate development. This is why large dogs often have a sixth digit; they take longer in development and thereby get an extra one.

    I mean, where did the DNA code for legs come from? How long is the DNA code for legs, hundred of base pairs, thousands? Is it longer or shorter than the DNA code for fins, or is it just different (i.e. not longer or shorter just different)?
    It's different for arthropods and vertebrates. But the earliest organisms with "legs" in the line that leads to arthropods were onychophorans:



    How much different is it? Is it a lot different or just a little incy-wincy bit different.
    It's not a simple set of instructions. There's a basic plan, common to all of these organisms, and then a developmental plan that modifies the basic plan. And I'm greatly oversimplifying here.

    (See what I did there! "incy-wincy spider" - get it? )
    Yep. Depending on what the gene is, a small change can have very great effects.

    Great questions; this is a very productive thread.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    SUTG (December 13th, 2017)

  10. #96
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    If that is true, why do we never find the remains of modern animals (i.e. horses, cattle, dogs, humans, etc) in the same bone beds that we find dinosaur bones in?
    Because the swift sloths outran the slow velociraptors during the flood.

    (can you say "swift sloths" three times, really fast?)
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  11. #97
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,599
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 2,064 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1367983
    Quote Originally Posted by iouae
    My belief is that there were certain times in the geologic column, that God experimented, whenever there would be a big change and the new organisms might need a tweak.
    Your belief a in a God who can't get things right is heretical.

    Quote Originally Posted by iouae
    In the end, I believe John 1:3 that every plant and animal was created by Jesus.
    It seems you think the Gospel and words of Jesus are like a buffet meal, where you pick a few things you like and reject the rest. His works, and His ways are perfect. Your god seems to have a few billion years of imperfect works. The God of the Bible created everything in six days... perfect. That perfect creation was subjected to entropy only after first Adam sinned.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  13. #98
    Member of the 10 year club on TOL!! CabinetMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    On the back of a horse someplace in Colorado
    Posts
    4,540
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 461 Times in 329 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    244593
    Quote Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
    Because the swift sloths outran the slow velociraptors during the flood.

    (can you say "swift sloths" three times, really fast?)
    Damn. I forgot how slow those darn velociraptors were compared to swift sloths. My bad.

    And no I cant.
    Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

    What are my fruits today?

    Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

    "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

  14. #99
    Body part Right Divider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    12,009
    Thanks
    9,024
    Thanked 15,721 Times in 8,726 Posts

    Blog Entries
    5
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147657

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker View Post
    This is why you took it out of context, it needs to be read with the previous sentence to maintain proper context:
    If they are not transitioning that would mean that God didn't finish His creation in 6 days. He continued to create long after.

    Let me paraphrase it for you:
    If they are not transitioning that would mean that God didn't finish His creation in 6 days then He continued to create long after.

    Make more sense now? Context is rarely a function of on sentence or even one paragraph. Some of the very worst theology comes when people take a phrase or sentence or paragraph out of a book in the Bible. It can destroy the context of the original text.
    Thanks for the clarification.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squeaky View Post
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by God's Truth View Post
    You preach against me for preaching obedience to Christ for salvation.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Right Divider For Your Post:

    CabinetMaker (December 13th, 2017),Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  16. #100
    TOL Legend Clete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Seated in the heavenly places at God's right hand, in Him!
    Posts
    8,247
    Thanks
    262
    Thanked 3,633 Times in 2,200 Posts

    Mentioned
    35 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147743
    Okay, I think I've gotten basically all I'm gonna get here. I do want to thank The Barbarian for participating so enthusiastically and with intellectual honesty, not to mention some pretty thick skin.


    What I got in answer to my question really is surprisingly less than what I expected to get. That's probably because I don't often discuss evolution. It, if I can be blunt, doesn't really interest me all that much because, to an objective mind, its just so patently ridiculous that I just can't take it seriously enough to devote the time it would take to debate it. It's one unsubstantiated claim after another, all of which are themselves presented as substantive evidence. It's just the most unfalsifiable gobbledygook in existence. How anyone can consider it science is beyond my comprehension. Fortunately, there are those here who do an excellent job of debating it and I can focus on other forms of ridiculous gobbledygook like Calvinism and time warping gravity wells.

    The reason I started the thread is because biology, a real science, just keeps mounting up the evidence against evolution and I happened across something I hadn't seen before the other day while wasting some time watching YouTube videos. There are at least a dozen different things in the video that I could have focused on as things that evolution has no prayer of explaining but I chose to focus on legs because I knew that none of you would have engaged the debate has I asked about the origin of replisomes or any number of the other biological machines at work in every cell in your body, all of which are created due to instructions encoded in the very DNA that they are themselves required to replicate. I chose the legs because near the end of the video the scientist's computer animation shows a motor protein walking down a microtubual with legs that have a knee and ankle joints and feet and that work perfectly well and COULD NOT POSSIBLY have evolved. There is no transitional forms that are even conceptually possible, never mind in existence, no matter how primitive the species in which these machines are found. There are several different kinds of motor proteins but none of them are simpler forms of other motor proteins, they're just altogether different. Not only that, but it seems that they are all necessary. One motor protein can't do the job that a different motor protein does. Each one can do what it does perfectly well but cannot be substituted if another one calls in sick that day. They either all show up for work or the cell dies, failing to pass on it's genetic information to the next generation. A point, one of thousands that exist in every single cell of every living creature in existence, that flatly falsifies evolution to any mind that isn't blind to his own confirmation bias and/or dead set against the existence of a Creator.

    One last point. The speaker in this video gives some lip service to Darwin at the beginning of the video. Biologists who are about to disprove the theory of evolution with whatever it is they're about to present ALWAYS do this! I mean, its uncanny! It doesn't matter what the venue, whether its in a classroom, on television, in a textbook, a magazine article or on YouTube or wherever! You can always tell when a scientist is about to throw Darwin under the bus because they will bring up Darwin himself or evolution in general out of the clear blue sky, giving it a touch of positive lip service before presenting something that just burns the whole thing down and blows the ashes in your face. As often as not this lip service will come in the form of simply stating, without any presentation of how or why, that what's being presented is "evolution in action" or something along those lines. It's hard to tell if this behavior is really the way the scientist thinks or if its just him covering his professional backside for fear of being accused of being some sort of Christian wolf is scientific sheep's clothing.

    Anyway, here's the video. If anyone would like to venture a wild guess as to how anything so wildly complex (irreducibly so in many cases) could possibly have evolved, I truly would love to hear it. Clearly, the legs on those motor proteins didn't evolve from fins.

    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Clete For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  18. #101
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,599
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 2,064 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1367983
    Quote Originally Posted by CabinetMaker
    If that is true, why do we never find the remains of modern animals (i.e. horses, cattle, dogs, humans, etc) in the same bone beds that we find dinosaur bones in?
    It is true what I said about paleontologist Kurt Wise. You can read his article if you wish, explaining why he says that horse fossils and others are more consistent with the creation model than the evolutionary model.


    As to my opinion.... I don t know the answer but can make some possible guesses. From God's Word we can possibly infer there are no pre-flood human fossils, as God said He would destroy humans from the face of the earth. We can also look at evidences humans did coexist with dinosaurs, such as cave drawings, Book of Job Marco Polo account etc. (These are all dismissed out of hand by evolutionists with their circular reasoning). We could also look at circular 'logic that often goes into dating fossils... dates have been moved by more than 100 million years, based on the evolutionary beliefs.


    If you want to understand better why paleontologist Kurt Wise believes the fossil evidence is consistent with the straight forward reading of God's Word, I can link you to various peer reviewed articles.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  20. #102
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,412
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 1,623 Times in 1,135 Posts

    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    281573
    Quote Originally Posted by Clete View Post
    Okay, I think I've gotten basically all I'm gonna get here. I do want to thank The Barbarian for participating so enthusiastically and with intellectual honesty, not to mention some pretty thick skin.
    Your integrity was a welcome change for me. Thanks for the discussion.

    Edit: Not saying that there aren't other honest creationists here, but unfortunately there are also...

    Let's see what we can find out about motor proteins...

    We herein report recent advances in our understanding of transport protein evolution. The Drug-Metabolite Transporter (DMT) superfamily (TC# 2.A.7) arose from a 2TMS precursor to give 4TMS proteins which then added one and duplicated to give 10. The proposed pathway is 2 –> 4 –> 5 –> 10. This superfamily provides a rare example where all proposed topological intermediates in this evolutionary pathway have been identified in current protein databases. Another family, the Oligopeptide Transporter (OPT) family (TC# 2.A.67), also started with a 2 TMS peptide precursor, but it followed the pathway:
    equation image

    Only 16 and 17 TMS OPT family members have been identified in current databases. The TRIC family of K+ channels, characterized in animals, arose via the pathway:
    equation image

    where the seventh TMS was added c-terminally to the 6 TMS precursor that resulted from a 3 TMS duplication. Surprisingly, animal TRIC channels proved to have numerous 7 TMS homologues in prokaryotes, none of which had been identified previously. We found that two families of integral membrane proteins gave rise to multiple current topological types. Members of the SdpC killer factor immunity protein family, SdpI (TC# 9.A.32) probably arose via the pathway:
    equation image

    while members of the Heme Handling Protein (HHP) Family (TC# 9.B.14) arose via the pathway:
    equation image

    Predictions are also made for an evolutionary pathway giving rise to the seven topological types of P-type ATPases so far identified in the P-ATPase superfamily. Finally, the ubiquitous CDF carriers (TC# 1.A.4) of 6TMSs probably gave rise to CRAC channels of 4TMSs by loss of the first two TMSs an unusual example of retroevolution.

    http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4008129

    So the advanced transport proteins seen in advanced eukaryotes have simpler and less-efficient precursors in other living things.

    Abstract
    Bacterial Membrane Transport: Superfamilies of Transport Proteins
    The bacterial transport systems enable bacteria to accumulate needed nutrients, extrude unwanted by products and maintain cytoplasmic content of protons and salts conducive to growth and development. Two most widely spread superfamilies of transporters are the ion-coupled systems that take part in chemiosmotic circuits, and the ABC solute ATPases (adenosine triphosphatases), whose operation is linked to ATP hydrolysis. The crystal structure of several bacterial transporters has recently been determined, a major breakthrough in the research of transporters. It opened the field to a combined study of structure, function and computation. Several of the structurally deciphered bacterial transporters have eukaryotic orthologues including neurotransmitter transporters that play major roles in health and disease and are major drug targets. Hence, the bacterial transport systems are important both for elucidating the mechanism of transport as well as drug design.
    Key concepts:

    Crystal structures are essential for understanding the mechanism of transport.

    Topology model of transporters obtained from the primary amino acid sequence, the positive-inside rule and experimental data have been validated by the crystal structure.

    Primary transporters utilize external source of energy to drive active transport.

    The secondary transporters utilize the energy stored in a pre-existing gradient to drive transport.

    The MFS, major facilitator superfamily, encompasses the largest number of evolutionary related most diverse group of secondary transporters and the extensively studied LacY and GlpT with their crystal structures are educative examples.

    Na+/H+ antiporters are essential for sodium and pH homeostasis in all cells and the most studied Escherichia coli NhaA with its crystal structure is an educative example.

    The sodium-coupled secondary transporter LeuT is a bacterial homologue of human neurotransmitters transporters and therefore its crystal structure is an essential step in drug design.

    The alternating access model is the mechanism of activity of secondary transporters.

    The molecules of many secondary transporters exhibit internal symmetry that implies a unique evolution.

    The internal symmetry of secondary transporters with the inverted repeats and the interrupted helices in the middle of the membrane is the structural basis of the activity mechanism.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....pub2/abstract

    Clete, have you considered the concept of what the Intelligent Design people call "front-loading", wherein God builds into His creation, the ability of life to adapt and change to produce the different kinds of living things?
    Last edited by The Barbarian; December 13th, 2017 at 08:45 PM.
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  21. #103
    Over 5000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    5,599
    Thanks
    1,000
    Thanked 3,403 Times in 2,064 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1367983
    Quote Originally Posted by quote
    @Clete, have you considered the concept of what the Intelligent Design people call "front-loading", wherein God builds into His creation, the ability of life to adapt and change to produce the different kinds of living things?
    Hey.... Barbarian got so close to the truth with this one. The only thing wrong with his answer is that it is God who has created the different kinds. God did program the genomes so that organisms could survive and adapt. Rapid adaptation and even speciation is consistent with the biblical account. (There is a thread on that topic)
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (December 15th, 2017)

  23. #104
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,348
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 654 Times in 450 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    255411
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    You may or may not care... But if you continue with dishonest comments on what Kurt Wise says... I will continue posting his actual words. Wise does not believe in "intermediate forms", and calls the word 'transitional' an ambiguous word. He actually says that there are interpretations of fossils that can be understood to support macroevolution... But, "It is my understanding, for example, that the claim of an old earth denies the veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis", and that fossil evidence often better fits the Biblical account.
    Then both you and Wise are simply incorrect

  24. #105
    Over 2000 post club
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    By the sea
    Posts
    2,348
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 654 Times in 450 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    255411
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Hey.... Barbarian got so close to the truth with this one. The only thing wrong with his answer is that it is God who has created the different kinds. God did program the genomes so that organisms could survive and adapt. Rapid adaptation and even speciation is consistent with the biblical account. (There is a thread on that topic)
    But a literal reading of the Biblical account is not consistent with the real world.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us