Bill has little control over what he says. The version of common descent Bill actually accepts is very far from universal and is close to separate creation of each species. Note the incoherence of the rest of that post.
You still don’t understand the difference between common ancestry and the mechanism of unguided evolution. Until you can make that distinction, there’s no point discussing the evidence with you, because you won’t even know how to evaluate the evidence for common ancestry if you don’t understand the theory.
Can one of our more thoughtful creationists (such as, erm, @thoughtful) weigh in on the evidence presented in the OP?
@colewd ,
Let us suppose we examine the modern world’s collection of unique Mammals:
Lions,
Tigers,
Bears,
Giraffes,
Horses,
Opossums,
Kangaroos,
Wallabies,
Wombats,
Koala, and the
Tasmanian devil.
You are an Old Earther, right? So you are perfectly fine with fact the great range of common descent we find for mammals happened WAYYYYYY before the first dynasty of Egypt rose up in thd Nile Valley - - yes? No?
Once we confirm your answer, the logical progression of the discussion can procede!
1 Like
If you understood this topic a bit better (a very, very, large bit better), you would realize that you just conceded that the evidence supports common descent. It doesn’t matter whether the changes are random or individually directed by some magical leprechaun or fairy or god.
4 Likes
@colewd ,
Here at PeacefulScience, there’s no reason to think evolution of “primates-without-tails” happened without God’s intention.
But, the reason God guiding evolution is so compelling is that it explains WHY the Earth is so old. If God could simply use de novo creation to kick-off the the starting points of mammals I listed (above), God would not have needed 65 million years to painsrakingly evolve them!
Why is God, despite his omnipotence, unable to create mammals de novo?
I am not saying he couldn’t. I am saying that IF he DID, he would not need 65 million years.
Wouldnt that be odd for God to create all these mammal kinds (de novo) … but to do it so slowly that it looks like he used Evolutiin instead!?
1 Like
Bill may not be capable of a coherent answer, so I’ll try for him. Yes, he’s an Old Earther. If he thought about it at all clearly, he would probably consider himself a progressive creationist of the RTB sort. He definitely thinks there are many kinds of mammals, and it’s almost certain that each of the taxa you mention would be considered separate creations, with the possible exception of lions and tigers. And some of them would be considered multiple separate creations, as he does for deer.
1 Like
7 posts were split to a new topic: Theological Hypotheses?
Isn’t 65my the wrong number? The split that led to tigers vs kangaroos happened long before that IIRC.
If your objective is to achieve rapprochement between creationists, “CASE’s” and atheists by proposing ideas that will be derided, in equal measure, by members of each group, consider yourself to have succeeded.
2 Likes
@Roy:
My powers of memory are fading. The number appears to be 66my!:
“… it is now generally thought that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the impact of a massive asteroid 10 to 15 km (6 to 9 mi) wide, 66 million years ago…”
See: Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.
As for “tigers vs kangaroos”, the split between Placental and Marsupial mammals is sometimes estimated as far back as 100ma ago. But regardless of mammal type, it would take wiping out large dinosaurs for mammals bigger than a badger to become commonplace.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.