I get the impression that a lot of evolutionists accept evidence quite readily and somewhat uncritically. Unlike such folks, I wouldn’t attempt to evaluate the genetic evidence unless I was professsionally trained in that area.
Genesis 1:2 attributes the creation of life-forms - all the way up to man - to the Holy Spirit.
Have you heard of bighorn sheep, Edgar? Or snow sheep? They are 2 of the 5 sheep species in the Ovis genus, and they get along just fine without human assistance. In fact, there is only one species in the genus that is domesticated.
You state that you have no acquaintance with genomic evidence and no ability to evaluate it even if you did. I appreciate your candor.
This bold proclamation, on the other hand, puzzles me. If you in your current state possess neither the knowledge nor the skill to evaluate the evidence, why bother asserting possible conclusions?
Nothing. They publish their research incessantly.
If you would actually read Gould’s original works, you would see that Gould is arguing for a stochastic model of evolutionary velocity rather than a constant rate.
Please correct me, though, if you read one of Gould’s books.
Also, your casual insinuation of dishonesty on the part of thousands of Christian men and women who have worked as biologists, paleontologists, and geneticists is quite alarming. You already confessed that you don’t have any professional knowledge about the subject, yet you feel qualified to judge their hearts? That’s pretty serious.
Finally, I noticed that you haven’t explained how it is that you know that Cain did not found a city until 600 years after murdering his brother. I am curious about that.
Best regards,
Chris
2 Likes
Thanks for these articles. I hope you realize that I’ll proabably have to give up some time on the golf course to read all this stuff!
1 Like
Okay, I’ll re-read the context of the quote I took from The Panda’s Thumb in the light of the possibility that I’ve misread it.
Okay. Thanks for that information.
Despite learning of the evidence, stubborness and pride might cloud my judgement and prevent me from accepting it.
I didn’t direct that comment to “thousands of Christian men and women who have worked as biologists … and geneticists”, but only to the sphere of paleontology. Anyhow, I’m sorry for the comment and hereby recant it.
But why does Gould describe the “extreme rarity of transition forms in the fossil record” as a “trade secret”?
3 Likes
How is the sequence evidence “just talk,” Edgar?
It only seems that way if one avoids the evidence and doesn’t look very far.
Wow. So why do you avoid all demonstrable facts when judging thousands of your Christian brothers and sisters?
But there’s evidence, not “endless hypotheses,” and “life evolved from a microbe” makes absolutely no sense.
Er, no; no one of normal intelligence needs years of training, nor a degree to understand the evidence. What are you afraid of?
But if you looked at the evidence you’d know that the fuzzy term “similarities” is grossly inaccurate. It’s just amazing that you’ll judge people with zero knowledge of the evidence, even while refusing to examine the evidence!
Aren’t you assuming that Genesis was written in English?
Isn’t your stubbornness and pride currently preventing you from looking at the evidence, much less accepting it?
How can you possibly make any claims whatsoever about what the fossil record reveals if you don’t ever look at the fossil record?
Oh, Edgar, you’re a funny guy. Whatever made you assume that my fossil digging was done in any academic context? It’s something I do with my kids!!!
So, let’s try again.
Why do you think have I never met a creationist at a fossil bed? Could it be the same reason why you evasively claim that you’d need years of training to examine the sequence evidence, which is not limited to fuzzy similarity?
Why not look at the transitional fossils for yourself instead of engaging in textual analysis?
It’s got nothing to do with the evidence. Can you provide with one example of how the “information” that life evolved from a microbe has proven useful to applied science?
I question any scienfific evidence that I feel is incompatible with Scripture - human evolution, for example.
It’s got everything to do with the evidence.
Are you so blind that you can’t see that you just wrote, “It’s got nothing to do with the evidence,” then immediately afterward demanded evidence from me???
And again, “life evolved from a microbe” makes absolutely no sense. It’s the second time you’ve used it with no explanation.
That’s not even close to being accurate.
You’re not questioning it, you’re simply avoiding it–but that avoidance doesn’t stop you from making sweeping judgments about your fellow Christians.
And “human evolution” is not an example of evidence. Fossils are evidence. Sequences are evidence. Human evolution is a process. Very different categories.
And if your judgment of what is incompatible with Scripture is based on the assumption that it was written in English, you’re on very shaky ground.
How about “the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe”?
If that fails, can you tell me which aspect of applied science would fail if no one at all accepted that life on earth began as a microbe and evolved and diversified over millions of years into all the present and past life-forms on earth?
Still makes zero sense. If evolutionary biology is so threatening to you, wouldn’t it be a good idea to learn more about it before mischaracterizing it?
Sorry, what I meant was, the evidence of human evolution. Even if I understood ERVs and accepted that they represent solid evidence of human evolution, I would still think a creationist explanation for them is possible, as human evolution contradicts Scripture, imo.
I’ve yet to come across a Jewish interpretation of Genesis 2:7 that allows Adam to be the offspring of a pre-existing creature. But maybe I haven’t looked hard enough.
But everything you’ve written here says you don’t have enough faith to jump into the evidence yourself, while misleading others by presenting your conclusions as based directly on the evidence! Why is that, Edgar?
And even worse, explaining things after the fact is not the essence of science. For a creationist hypothesis to be scientific, it would need to predict evidence we haven’t seen yet. Pretending that it’s simply about explanations is pseudoscience.
Why would it have to be Jewish? Why? Do you not realize that there are many Christian scholars that are fluent in Hebrew?
What does this even mean, man? Have you read anything about abiogenesis hypotheses from those who do the research? And why are you sliding to abiogenesis from evolution, when they are two different things?
I’m not even talking about the evidence here!
I’ve already pointed out that the fossil evidence fits progressive creation much better than biological evolution does. That’s a start.
Why can’t breeders produce cows the size of elephants, twelve-foot-tall racehorses (they would if they could) or black budgerigars? … because their DNA is limited and fixed by uncrossable boundaries - only God’s creative power can overcome these genetic boundaries.