macroevolution and intermediate links

[Texan Christian]

So, according to macroevolution, which I have done much study on (I made a 10 minute platform speech against it a year ago), there should be intermediate links between fossils of animals believed to be connected. The problem with this theory, is that there are few if any (I'd argue there are none, the commonly used "Lucy" actually has evidence that it is simply the skeleton of an ape which would be able to more easily sit upright, all the other bones besides the hip are the same as a normal ape. (if you wish bring up any "intermediate links" you know about)) intermediate links, when, there should be plenty. There should, in fact, be more intermediate links than the fossils of animals living today (or extinct).
I believe some macroevolutionists, seeing the faults in this, believe that animals evolved through many series of "good mutations" which actually benefitted the animal, but there have never been observed a "positive" mutation, and by that theory as well, there should be many positive mutations which happen. If I got anything a little confused or appear to have forgotten something let me know

Good day and God bless y'all

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

and allow me to add this..............science arrives at working models through the scientific method that are both consistent and predictable which allows us to create the progress of civilization as we know it today.

We can design tools, airplanes, valves, gears you name before we actually make them and they will work because of the validation of the scientific method.

This is because the laws of nature which govern our ability to do so are fixed in such a manner that allow such a consistency and predictability........nobody doubts that gravity won't work the next time they slip and fall.....

But.............a miracle as claimed by Biblical stories by a so called personal God such as walking on liquid water or coming back from the dead after 3 days of decay would require the suspension of those laws..........

If either a personal God or his followers in prayer filled by this God's will could result in miracles (aka via suspending the laws of nature) then...

The Scientific method would not work!!!

Because it would be in constant interruption from miracles............!!!

The fact that the scientific method yields such consistency is proof the suspension of the laws of nature don't happen by any so called miracles.............

Theist never understand this.....

Law of nature?.....consistent and predictable enough to guarantee applied technology to social progress. Over and over without fail..............aka no miracles.

End of story...turn out the lights on your fairy tale Bible claims and learn to deal with reality.........because you can ignore reality but reality won't ignore you.

[PghPanther]

For this to be a valid point it would necessarily need be consistently true, and not simply true when you need it to be true, and not necessarily true when you need it to be not necessarily true.

Now, explain why it is necessarily true that evolution requires a divine orchestrator and why it is not therefore necessarily true that the divine orchestrator requires a divine orchestrator.

It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.

And to ask "why doesn't the divine orchestrator require a divine orchestrator" would be like asking "What was the cause of the uncaused cause".

It is nonsensical.

Would you care to define what is life?

Can you explain if a virus when in a host cell is alive but in a crystalized state is non-living?

What is a seed in a dormant state?..........is it alive?......or is it nonliving organic compounds...

Do you understand that the bridge between living and non-living at its primary core is not a binary black and white observation but a very dubious blend of many greys making the distinction between what is alive and what is not a very challenging task?

You suffer from "theist crippled cognition".............driven by the binary world of Biblical claims...........on/off yes/no right/wrong....

....no middle ground understanding of how we get from one of those to the other..........

Before you make your claim of the non living to living is impossible (without the supernatural force of a deity who just happens to be the personal God of the Bible in your worldview)......how about explaining to me what is life for a virus.....and how it can go from a crystalized non-living state to one of life?

Let's get this understand upfront before we hear your sermons on what you have all the answers for but don't know the questions to ask first...........

[Kenisaw]

Some random snippets from Kingdom that need addressing:

It is necessarily true because of the impossibility of life naturally originating from nonliving material.

It is not impossible. There is nothing about any life form on Earth that violates any of the laws of the universe. Life is chemically possible. Life is thermodynamically possible. Life follows the laws of physics. Your claim that it is an impossibility is utter nonsense.

The first law of thermodynamics "matter/energy can not be created or destroyed" is a law that came into effect only AFTER the universe began to exist. Just like the Constitution of the United States came into effect only AFTER the United States became a nation.

You cannot say with any accuracy what laws were or were not in place before the Big Bang. No one can, because no one knows for sure. But I know why you think that, because you think the universe is something from nothing, which it isn't...As shown by these comments:

But that is the point, the singularity wasn't just sitting there for eternity waiting to expand..it had to have come from somewhere.

There are only two options. Either the past is infinite, or the past is finite. We have reasons to believe that the past is finite, therefore, a timeless cause is necessary.

So in essence, the past cannot be eternal, a First Cause is necessary.

The universe equals nothing. I've explained this to you in other threads I believe, but to reiterate, everything in the universe cancels out. The net spin of the universe is zero. The net charge of the universe is zero. The net momentum, the net force, the net energy, the net (insert here) is all zero. The universe equals nothing. It literally is nothing, from nothing. The current state of the universe is just a version of "nothing". Simply put: 1-1=0, 1+1-1-1=0, 2-1-1=0....all different states of 0, but still zero. The universe is a state of nothing...

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 82 by Kenisaw]

Another way of thinking of it is nothing and something at the most primary quantum levels are really just manifestations of the same thing reconfigured in such a way that our current state (universe) is a broken symmetry of a prior super symmetrical state.

The best primary distribution of our broken symmetry we can define so fart is the standard model of particle physics...........experiments with higher energy levels will be required to unify that into a more symmetrical understanding of our earlier phase of the universe.

The LHC in Cern is in part one of the devices designed to further that effort.

Those that proclaim theistic answers often don't understand the questions.......

.....and they are banking on ancients being told the answers when they had no clue either in what to ask.