Posted on 10/21/2009 8:28:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Charles Darwin admitted that the sudden appearance of fully formed creatures in fossil deposits was one of the biggest problems with his hypothesis that nature generated living creatures through natural selection. His vision of organisms gradually morphing from one kind to another over vast time spans predicted that most fossils should reflect that steady grading from one basic body plan to another.
Some scientists believe they have found a creature that bridges one of the many gaps in the fossil record, although it requires a significant reworking of evolutionary theory. The crow-sized pterosaur fossil from China has been named Darwinopterus in honor of the “year of Darwin.” This is certainly ironic, considering the fact that the creature had none of the partially graded features that would show transition from one to the other of the two major pterosaur types. Instead, it demonstrated a unique mosaic of fully functional body parts...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Ping!
Looks like they don’t have all the answers yet!
The mosaic pattern (think Platypus) instead of gradualistic intermediates is significant even within creationary thinking. I would actually expect more gradation in nature, as much as allowable by design constraints. Instead we seem to have a more discrete, modular nature of living forms. It would be interesting to explore the degree to which this is driven by design constraints, and the degree to which it is presumably due to other factors (such as negating any evolutionary explanation).
Thanks for the ping!
What a preposterous position upon which to attempt to refute Darwin. Do you even read this crap before you post it?
This condition can only be satisfied when ALL fossil evidence is available. Obviously no one can make the assertion that no fossil remains undiscovered and that a conclusion can now be made that the Darwinopterus "suddenly" and "spontaneously" appeared.
You see, if one pretends to have answers derived from such a “sophisticated position”, it invents a theoretical barrier for public debate.
The fact is they have no such understanding and the “scientific logic” does NOT hold together.
Is it necessary to believe in a young earth creation in order to be saved?
Meaning that you would have thought that God would have created a more blended creation, or that the capacity for change within the created kinds would make it look more blended and gradualistic?...I’m not sure I follow you here.
No.
Which is why Richard Dawkins is becoming a laughingstock, even among evolutionists.
LOL...the more fossils they find, the worse it gets for darwood’s evo-religous creation myth. Do your homework for a change.
It is not nor has it ever been about 'humans'. What is and will be protected is the system of 'scientific methodology'. But as with any doctrine the person that gains power to practice the system of 'scientific methodology' is where the harm is done.
IF evolutionist want to practice their system fine well and have at it. The harm was introduced to all of humanity when they got stature handed to them by the Supremes as the law of the land, and thus taxpayers have been required, even without representation to pay for their system...
Just wait a few years from now when BamaKennedy puts his touch on this system of 'scientific methodology', and what has been accepted as fittest to survive will be turned on its collective head. Some people are going to have to have their literal noses rubbed in that system before they will smell the smell.
Seems to me he has. It is you who insists on misinterpreting information to support your mistakenly held beliefs.
“Looks like they don’t have all the answers yet!”
What? Do you have any real understanding of science at all? Statements such as yours provide further reinforcement to the fact that creation “science” is nothing of the kind (not that any such additional evidence was necessary, of course).
Faith and science are separate and coexist nicely. When an article of faith is used as the presumed end state in scientific inquiry, however, the process that results is not science, but rationalization. Without falsification, it is instead the creation rationalizers who have all the answers, as evidenced by the last line from the article:
“See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End.”
The author, Brian Thomas MS*, remains a shameless rationalizer, easily contradicted by even the least prepared thinking person.
As usual, they have cherry-picked one sentence upon which to base their claims against evolution. Go to G-Cube’s link, scroll to the bottom, click on the first link provided for the real story.
That makes sense because we don't see living things popping up out of nowhere, created by God or anyone else.
Now, Platonism is not Christianity, but various Christian thinkers have explored it and think it may be on to something. I don't think there is any reason to suppose God 'had' to fill all morphospace, but it does seem apparent that God produced a wonderful variety of life and delighted in it. If this intuition is correct, we should expect to see 'intermediates' insofar as present life is a subset (due to extinctions) of the original created variety of life. The pattern would not match evolutionism closely, but would superficially look like it if you did not attempt to fit the intermediates into a specific evolutionary framework.
(Attempts to do so would tend to fail, leading to lineages filled with question marks and competing lineages based on conflicting criteria - in other words, just what the evolutionary community is faced with today.)
I hope that you don't mind.
I have a question for you:
Jesus told the pharisees that they didn't't believe what He was saying because they didn't believe what Moses wrote about Him.
What did Moses write about Jesus? And...what didn't the pharisees believe in regard to Mose's writing about Jesus?
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.