Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
This article is basically a few tiny "facts" surrounded by a mountain of speculation and assumption. Interesting reading, but intellectually disingenuous.
"They're trying to find themself an audience. Their deductions need applause" - Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway
But no one claims evolution happens by mere chance.
I'm trying to be patient here...but if not chance, then what mind is directing away from random?
Allen Funt had a television show called "Candid Cambrian." He caught creatures in the act of evolving themselves.
"Which is not created until the fourth day and which could not sustain life on earth."
Did not say the Sun was formed. There was light already.
Go look what happened on the first day.
post # 95 in this thread mentions two that were presented as legitimate and were later found to be fake, with a source link/url and quote. But that was not my point. You read into my posts things that were not there. All I ever said was that there are places in china that produce fakes. nothing more, nothing less.
God created evolution.
It's merely His toolbox.
The Bible says what. Science attempts to explain HOW. Evolution is the answer.
Who said anything about "mere chance"?
The universe -- and man --- is no more a chance result than a souffle?
Doesn't mean it wasn't made by mixing in certain ingredients and baking just so.
God is the ultimate cook.
I know. Go read my post again.
They are going downhill in this area. And have been abysmal for years. Which explains your ignorance.
You are a confused person.
I think God created evolution first.
Lots of educated Christians think so.
What's your point?
To follow up, you primary objection to evolutionary theory is that there was "no light" for the plants.
Well, yes, there was light on the 1st day. I said nothing about the Sun existing. Stop making things up.
"A day is NOT defined by the Sun or the moon. A day is one rotation of the earth on its axis. It is most definately applicable."
Wrong.
The Earth would not necessarily rotate on its axis if there was no Sun to orbit. Indeed, it probably would do little more than drift along. It almost certainly would not have a 24 hour day without the influence of the moon.
Mutation is random or at least not specifically directed toward a goal. Selection determines which changes survive. Selection is occasionally random, as in mass extinctions, but generally it fine tunes things.
The important concept here is that there is no direction to change. Things do not change towards a goal. Selection may look like a goal, and some writers loosely speak of selective pressure, but selection prunes. It does not direct.
If mutations were biased toward adaptive change you would expect extinction to be rare. But most species fail to adapt to sudden large changes, and extinction is the rule rather than the exception. The large plants and animals that survive mass extinction events and najor climate changes tend to be the smaller and less specialized ones.
There was a recent thread on the ivory-billed woodpecker. It has a near cousin, the piliated, that is slightly smaller and a lot less specialized, and which has never been threatened with extinction.
God created "chance". I see no problem in abiogensis happening by "chance", since God created it in the first place.
I've often heard the term "in the day of", meaning a long period of time. Such as "in the day of Abraham".
Day is pretty meaningless in Genesis, particularly since Gen 2:4 starts all over from the beginning and tells a completely different story.
Bible litteralists claim that this merely retells the same story. But there are some subtle sequence differences between the two.
Bottom line. The Bible says God did it. Science attempts to tell us how He did it by examining Gods creation directly.
Since there can be no conflict between Gods creation and Gods Word, then someone has interpreted something wrong. Since Science has accumulated far, far, far more evidence in the matter than a few confusing words in the Bible, I believe their version of how God created the world is correct over your interpretation of Genesis.
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.