Wasn’t it recently (in this or maybe some other thread), where somebody used the analogy of the crime scene where the butler is caught on camera sneaking with the weapon and then witnessed entering the victim’s room. The jury finds the butler guilty because of all the evidence - but then, in a last minute “nail in the coffin” moment, the prosecution shows yet one more video segment of the butler sneaking past a doorway along his path with his weapon. After which the defense triumphantly declares: "now there isn’t just one gap in our knowledge of the path the butler took towards the victim - now we have two gaps!
If anybody remembers where that was, it was told much more elegantly than my memory probably allowed here. Anyway, some of these “questions” remind me of that.
In the good old days such things were attempted but the modern thrust is microcellular. You might find the odd sequence showing how a particular feature might have evolved, say a feather. (don’t go there now) but the waters have got so muddy with new creatures that chronicling any sort of animal development seems problematic at best.
The best change has been the view that monotremes are a direct line decendent instead of a anomalous offshoot caused when Australasia departed rorm the main land mass. Australaisia became a sort of museum where old ancestors survived because the mutations elsewhere never occured there. Good idea that, to provide such a record.
Well, if you read a presentation about testing drug interactions, you shouldn’t be surprised that it goes into detail about drug interactions rather than about evolutionary theory. What’s your point? The motivation for combining drugs is – as you quoted previously – based on Darwinian evolutionary theory.
Then perhaps you should not jump so fast and hard onto others when they fail to notice spelling errors. I use Grammarly but it does not always understand what I am trying to say.(and, clearly, neither do you)
Because you do not understand that you conflate science – the merely physical, the natural, the methodological, the VFB – with the spiritual – the supernatural, the heavenly perspective, the theological, the philosophical, the VFA.
Let’s see. You contend that God is not sovereign over all of the weather. I understand what you are saying. It’s not true. What’s to want? The truth is what to want.
I do not see what you see. That does not make you right and me wrong (or vice versa)
Your opinion of my views is based solely on the fact that they differ from yours. And you are not prepared to budge one inch. let alone consider the possibility that there might be another valid viewpoint.
Truth is not nearly as black and white as you appear to think.
And the whole point of being individuals is that we do not think the same.
Then use the words of Christ and consider how you would feel if I treated you as you treat me.
I agree that oftentimes I do not excel in graciousness, but this is a forum about science, and when you fail to distinguish between the labels (wink), you are getting the science wrong. Then you insist and even tell professionals – several of them being Christians that work with the principles of evolution every day – that they’re wrong.
What does Christianity teach us about the process that produced the history of life on earth, as revealed in the fossil record?
I don’t recall any such lesson in the New Testament.
What I object to is your following me around the forum and automatically taking an opposing or negative view,(with few exceptions) and
Bookmarking my comments so that you can use them against me.
