Posted on 08/13/2003 9:02:05 PM PDT by nwrep
Not quite. You still seem to believe there is something in evolution that claims there is a sharp demarkation wherein one individual of one species is born as another species. We've tried to disabuse you of this notion and show you that it is populations that change into new species, but I don't think we've managed to succeed, at least from the evidence of your posts.
Because a whale is a mammal and has mammalian parts.
Part B. The fossil record does not show this. ["Why also put fossils in the rocks that seem to show land animals slowly losing their legs and becoming whales?"] It is your interpretation that some land animal lost its legs and became a whale, but there is no proof (and don't use the alleged hip bones inside the whale as evidence as those bones are not vestigial even today but assist in a very important process for the whale- reproduction).
Really jaw-dropping. So either you know nothing at all of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, or you only vaguely remember that there's an AiG naysaying article somewhere trying to dismiss it all on technicalities. Either way, ignorance of evidence is not absence of evidence.
Just because the designer did not design things the way the omniscient scientist would have liked for him to does not mean that it was a design flaw.
You can't infer much from the occasional appearance of design if nothing can be inferred from the absence of clear design intent.
Out for a while. I'll check back when I can, but I'm looking at a busy next few days.
I know, I know.
Your interpretation makes no sense against my words, nor does it make sense against the exchange I was having with MM, nor does it make sense in any other way. Still, if it was just one post, I'd call it a brain fart.
But it comes on top a thread-long performance in which one evo poster after another has had to correct your mischaracterizations. You've been at once relentless and tone-deaf.
Now I mean it, I'm gone for a bit.
I agree with you there. Human beings are created in God's image. (As a Jew, I interpret that to mean spiritual image-- i.e., we have the ability to reason and to choose between good and evil-- not physical image.) It is my understanding, however, that God bestowed this gift on us through the process of evolution.
Biological, there may be similarities in appearance and even DNA (as I pointed out earlier, we share a lot of our DNA with a cabbage but aren't decended from them), but we can not breed with them nor is there any evidence that we ever did breed with them or a shared ancestor.
DNA similarities show common descent; the closer the similarity, the more recent the common ancestor. If you can disprove this, a lot of men being sued for child support will want to hire you.
There is really no evidence of a shared ancestor (bones don't show that they had ANY offspring period, just that they died), just a bunch of skulls (and skull portions) that scientists say this one is ape, this one is less ape, this one appears to be taking on the shape of being a little more human, etc.,
People (and apes) don't just magically appear; they are born from parents. As we go further back in time, we find the bones of human beings becoming progressively less upright; we find their brains becoming progressively smaller; and we find their teeth becoming progressively more ape-like.
I don't know precisely at what point on the evolutionary scale our ancestors became endowed with the Divine image and acquired an immortal soul; I don't think the bones will ever tell us that. (They do give us some hints, though-- at a certain point in the fossil record, the hominid bones start to show signs of deliberate burial.) Some things religion can answer and science can't; other things, religion can't answer and science can.
Yes! That is precisely the issue! I assume you agree that the answers of science are just fine -- but only scientifically. So at that point it's a question of your personal ranking of information.
Not quite. You still seem to believe there is something in evolution that claims there is a sharp demarkation wherein one individual of one species is born as another species. We've tried to disabuse you of this notion and show you that it is populations that change into new species, but I don't think we've managed to succeed, at least from the evidence of your posts.
No I don't.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood your post 2021:
|
#2021: New Dinosaur Species Found in India ^ Evos say that apes and we share a common ancestor? True or false? Through mutations over time man evolved upward from ape-like to man. At some point a radical enough change occurred that he was fully man (unless you just consider all men part apes). He had to have a mate. Unless a suitable female evolved exactly the same way he did, she still had part ape in her. If she did evolve exactly the way he did, why? Each person's genetics are different. A child can inherit a parent's gene, but to have a husband and wife arriving at that same point of fully human at the exact same time seems a little odd. Of course, having an ape turn, over time and mutation, into a higher form of species, namely man, is a bit odd too. 2,021 posted on 08/21/2003 8:33 PM CDT by DittoJed2 |
Bold mine for emphasis. I'm not quite sure how we evos were to take the above except as illustrative of my contentions.
I see the firmament as the separation between the physical and the spiritual realms - not a geometric boundary in space/time.
Additionally, because Genesis begins by saying He created heaven and earth (and because of Christian passages which you would not embrace) --- we ought to view Genesis 1 as speaking to the creation of ”all that there is” and not just the physical realm.
As with the Temple and the Ark, things which happen in the physical realm are a model of the real thing which exists in eternity. I see the Garden of Eden in the same light – the real Garden is paradise.
Therefore, Genesis 2 and 3 speak of events which are concurrently transpiring in eternity – culminating with Adam and Eve being banished to mortality. That's when I see Adamic man entering the physical realm in the form of a human being. That constitutes the Fall, when death entered the physical realm, i.e. spiritual Adamic man must now die. What made the difference between Adamic man and all the other men who were on earth was the neshama – the breath of God.
At that point the narrative of Genesis, the aspect changes to Adamic man and therefore, time passing becomes relative to our space/time coordinates. About 6000 years have transpired on Adam’s clock.
If we follow the archeological evidence – man’s desire to achieve immortality, the use of tools, personal adornment, community living, commerce, weapons, star gazing, household "gods", "super" men and the ilk – all commence and flow along the Adamic man timeline and geography.
And at about 2350 b.c. (which matches approximately the time of Noah) - virtually every center of such “civilization” in the entire world was wiped out by a catastrophic event. Some attribute this to cosmic debris, some to earthquakes – but it is characterized by massive flooding and destruction, even changing fertile ground to desert.
What is the evidence for this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.