How did God do it?

Originally posted by wolfgang59


Ultimately we are related to mushrooms!!

😛

kept in the dark and fed crap?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry i'm not quite sure what your disputing here.

We have fossils dated 385 million yrs old that have fins, fossils from 365 million years ago that had legs (tetrapods) and now we have a fossil dated 375 million years ago that has a fin/leg hybrid.

What's your point?

I made it....

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Creationists on his forum often try to find holes in evolutionary theory (KellyJays thread on the human eye being the latest), and i have read numerous times how evolution is made up, lies, religious dogma etc etc.

If life on this planet didn't evolve as evolutionary theory would have us believe, simply, how did God do it then? I' ...[text shortened]... taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?

I've read countless postings on how life didn't come into existence, but never any actual postings on how it did, other than 'God did it'.
By applying the theory you espouse to be the cause of things coming into existence, your countless readings ought to have imparted you with the answer by now.

Right?

Originally posted by galveston75
I made it....

If that was it,....................it was rubbish.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I've read countless postings on how life didn't come into existence, but never any actual postings on how it did, other than 'God did it'.
By applying the theory you espouse to be the cause of things coming into existence, your countless readings ought to have imparted you with the answer by now.

Right?[/b]

I'm looking for the views of people who reject evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry i'm still not quite sure what you mean.

You accept evolution occurs? But only in small amounts?!

You going to have to give me more than two sentences here Kelly.

We have been here before:

Kelly once basically told us in one of his posts about one and a half years ago that he DOES believe things DO evolve!!!!
-but NOT into new species 😛

So I assume he accepts the fact that species can evolve over a period of time to develop small changes (because this doesn’t contradict his religious beliefs) but NEVER a big enough change to become a different species (because this DOES contradict his religious beliefs).

It begs the question:

If a small change can occur over a relatively short period of time then what natural force is stopping a much larger and significant change (such as enough to constitute the formation of a new species) occurring over a much longer period of time by the ACCUMULATION of many small changes each of which occurred within a short time period within that much longer time period?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If that was it,....................it was rubbish.

Your opinion and that's fine.

Originally posted by galveston75
And read thru the discription carefully and slowly.

''The remarkable find was made by a paleontologist who noticed the skull sticking out of a cliff. On further inspection, the ancient animal was found to be in fantastic shape for a 383-million-year-old specimen.

After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt: a collection of several fish so beautifully preserved that their skeletons were still intact. As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler.''

Did you really read it? Those two pictures aren't all they found.

Originally posted by Thomaster
As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler.''

As the geneticist Steve Jones pointed out, creationists are never satisfied when scientists do turn up "missing links". They point to a gap in the fossil record and assert that this disproves evolution. Then a scientist discovers a fossil that fills the gap. And the creationist sticks his tongue out and says: "Told you so! Now there are twice as many gaps."

Lol.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
We have been here before:

Kelly once basically told us in one of his posts about one and a half years ago that he DOES believe things DO evolve!!!!
-but NOT into new species 😛

So I assume he accepts the fact that species can evolve over a period of time to develop small changes (because this doesn’t contradict his religious beliefs) but NEVER ...[text shortened]... l changes each of which occurred within a short time period within that much longer time period?

Exactly.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution but over a longer period of time.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Exactly.

Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution but over a longer period of time.

that would be impossible because the DNA would have to change

Originally posted by daniel58
that would be impossible because the DNA would have to change

DNA changes with every generation. It even changes during the life time of an organism. Life is constantly changing.

I used to believe that God used (Classic evolution) to create life as we know it.I believed this to reconcile my belief in God and science. I however struggle with the concept that this happened over millions and millions of years. I also feel that the transitional species is a problem. What is the answer? If millions of years then there should be more in the fossil record just by the fact of time. We've all been taught in school that our ancestors first came out of the sea possibly millions of years ago. I appreciate proper knobs example however at least it is evidence of a transitional species.

Manny

Originally posted by daniel58
that would be impossible because the DNA would have to change

Haven’t you heard of “mutations”?