WELCOME! A place where iron can sharpen iron, where spiritual milk and strong meat may be shared and received by all, where scripture can be expounded, where truth and love may be seen by the world.
To post: email totw@truthonthewb.org from your email address and ask for the password. It will be changed from time-to-time as need arises. Thank you for posting here. God bless.
>What would you do if lots of conclusive evidence came in for evolution? [as it does every day!] <
Not so, did you see the last fiasco (shown on the BBC) where the National Geographic, (one of the most respected journals for expounding the theory of evolution) published as fact(as the experts had declared this to be so) that a link had been found in China between birds and reptiles?
It was later found to be a simple fraud!!!! And in THIS day and age! The Nat Geo was very, very embarressed, if you watched the documentary you would have been 'gob smacked' at the icompitence of these world experts!
So, I do not get all concerned by 'possible' discoveries, they have NOT been published as FACT. When they do, I will look at them, but I don't expect after all these years of searching that I will have anything TO look at.
Yes, we can get back to any point you wish, but I am answering on the hoof at the moment, as I do not want you to feel you have not had polite response.
Bewst regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Well depends what you mean by plenty!!!
There are quite a few say the websites I have visited but perhaps not THAT many. My post above explains why we would expect that.
2. Fair enough - but then I persist in the point that it is very dangerous for you a non-scientist to rest your faith on the view that a theory accepted by just about all the experts in the field is false. Better to interpret Genesis non-literally. What would you do if lots of conclusive evidence came in for evolution? [as it does every day!] Your faith is at the mercy of scientific discoveries. Better to render it immune from such a possibility I would suggest.
All the best
Laurie
Back to the main points when you have time I suggest?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
his is a brief reply for now Laurie, I ahven't much time right now.
1)there are plenty of transitional fossils.
No, that is incorrect, even a scientist will verify that. The ONE you do quote is not proven to be trnsitinal at all.
2)My next comment is not to 'get' at you because there is no reason why you should not do this. I think that the reason you do not accept evolution is nothing whatever to do with the science at all, which, in any case, you are not qualified to judge: it is rather that you have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution and so whatever evidence is put forward for evolution and however many scientists accept it, you will reject it. Correct?
No, incorrect.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Hi Julian [and others,]
To move on to the second point you make against evolution: the absence of intermediate/transitional fossils.
There are two points of logic here.
1. If there are two species A and B and a fossil is found [as often has been the case] between A and B, let us call it X, which is claimed by the evolutionist to be intermediate, the evolutionist replies, "No, it is a new SPECIES between A and B not a transitional fossil. But there is something wrong here because the evolutionist can do this for ANY fossil that is found between A and B.
2. Suppose a fossil is found between two TYPES of animal. It will have characteristics of both. Nevertheless the animal might be classified as being one or the other. However this is just for convenience - it is still transitional between the two. See remarks below on archaeopteryx.
Why are transitional fossils infrequent.
1. Fossils are rare! Most animals leave no trace and it is unusual indeed for an animal to die in circumstance that allow fossilization.
2. If speciation takes place in small populations over a very short period of time then there would be hardly any such animals to form fossils anyway.
3. Further if evolution occurs in jumps rather than gradually, the same conclusion would apply.
4. Nevertheless there are plenty of transitional fossils for example...
Archaeopteryx.
I looked it up on
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
where there was a long article about this creature. You remember archeo is said by evolutionists to be transitional between dinosaurs and birds but creationists say it is a bird. Well sometimes it is classified as a bird but - see above - that does not mean it cannot be transitional too. Moreover the articles looks at its characteristics and says that it has more that are similar to dinosaurs than those that are similar to birds - though it has plenty that are bird like too.
What can I say about it? Not being a biologist I do not know how much weight to put on the fact that like a dinosaur the 'deltoid ridge of the humerous faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles'! Do you?
The fact is that as neither of us has much of a clue how to weigh this up. We are reduced to looking at competing websites and quoting them at each other. So is it a draw then? Well, 'No' , because I am going with the vast majority of scientists while you are going with a very small number all of whom have already decided that evolution is wrong. As an amateur here I have to go with the majority of experts as I would about any similar problem.
My next comment is not to 'get' at you because there is no reason why you should not do this. I think that the reason you do not accept evolution is nothing whatever to do with the science at all, which, in any case, you are not qualified to judge: it is rather that you have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution and so whatever evidence is put forward for evolution and however many scientists accept it, you will reject it. Correct?
Best wishes
Laurie
Email: kingdomsearcher@msn.com
Julian,
I would be interested in your response to the points I made there.
[We have been on an interesting sidetrack here]
Best wishes
Laurie
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
>What would you do if lots of conclusive evidence came in for evolution? [as it does every day!] <
Not so, did you see the last fiasco (shown on the BBC) where the National Geographic, (one of the most respected journals for expounding the theory of evolution) published as fact(as the experts had declared this to be so) that a link had been found in China between birds and reptiles?
It was later found to be a simple fraud!!!! And in THIS day and age! The Nat Geo was very, very embarressed, if you watched the documentary you would have been 'gob smacked' at the icompitence of these world experts!
So, I do not get all concerned by 'possible' discoveries, they have NOT been published as FACT. When they do, I will look at them, but I don't expect after all these years of searching that I will have anything TO look at.
Yes, we can get back to any point you wish, but I am answering on the hoof at the moment, as I do not want you to feel you have not had polite response.
Bewst regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
1. Well depends what you mean by plenty!!!
There are quite a few say the websites I have visited but perhaps not THAT many. My post above explains why we would expect that.
2. Fair enough - but then I persist in the point that it is very dangerous for you a non-scientist to rest your faith on the view that a theory accepted by just about all the experts in the field is false. Better to interpret Genesis non-literally. What would you do if lots of conclusive evidence came in for evolution? [as it does every day!] Your faith is at the mercy of scientific discoveries. Better to render it immune from such a possibility I would suggest.
All the best
Laurie
Back to the main points when you have time I suggest?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
his is a brief reply for now Laurie, I ahven't much time right now.
1)there are plenty of transitional fossils.
No, that is incorrect, even a scientist will verify that. The ONE you do quote is not proven to be trnsitinal at all.
2)My next comment is not to 'get' at you because there is no reason why you should not do this. I think that the reason you do not accept evolution is nothing whatever to do with the science at all, which, in any case, you are not qualified to judge: it is rather that you have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution and so whatever evidence is put forward for evolution and however many scientists accept it, you will reject it. Correct?
No, incorrect.
Best regards, Julian.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Hi Julian [and others,]
To move on to the second point you make against evolution: the absence of intermediate/transitional fossils.
There are two points of logic here.
1. If there are two species A and B and a fossil is found [as often has been the case] between A and B, let us call it X, which is claimed by the evolutionist to be intermediate, the evolutionist replies, "No, it is a new SPECIES between A and B not a transitional fossil. But there is something wrong here because the evolutionist can do this for ANY fossil that is found between A and B.
2. Suppose a fossil is found between two TYPES of animal. It will have characteristics of both. Nevertheless the animal might be classified as being one or the other. However this is just for convenience - it is still transitional between the two. See remarks below on archaeopteryx.
Why are transitional fossils infrequent.
1. Fossils are rare! Most animals leave no trace and it is unusual indeed for an animal to die in circumstance that allow fossilization.
2. If speciation takes place in small populations over a very short period of time then there would be hardly any such animals to form fossils anyway.
3. Further if evolution occurs in jumps rather than gradually, the same conclusion would apply.
4. Nevertheless there are plenty of transitional fossils for example...
Archaeopteryx.
I looked it up on
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
where there was a long article about this creature. You remember archeo is said by evolutionists to be transitional between dinosaurs and birds but creationists say it is a bird. Well sometimes it is classified as a bird but - see above - that does not mean it cannot be transitional too. Moreover the articles looks at its characteristics and says that it has more that are similar to dinosaurs than those that are similar to birds - though it has plenty that are bird like too.
What can I say about it? Not being a biologist I do not know how much weight to put on the fact that like a dinosaur the 'deltoid ridge of the humerous faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles'! Do you?
The fact is that as neither of us has much of a clue how to weigh this up. We are reduced to looking at competing websites and quoting them at each other. So is it a draw then? Well, 'No' , because I am going with the vast majority of scientists while you are going with a very small number all of whom have already decided that evolution is wrong. As an amateur here I have to go with the majority of experts as I would about any similar problem.
My next comment is not to 'get' at you because there is no reason why you should not do this. I think that the reason you do not accept evolution is nothing whatever to do with the science at all, which, in any case, you are not qualified to judge: it is rather that you have already decided that the Bible contradicts evolution and so whatever evidence is put forward for evolution and however many scientists accept it, you will reject it. Correct?
Best wishes
Laurie
Email: mgt.harris@btinternet.com