Evolutionary Perspective

The Evolutionary Perspective. Randall Niles reviews the Philosophical Leaps in Evolutionary Science.

Visit http://www.AllAboutTheJourney.org/spontaneous-generation.htm to understand how the evolutionary perspective fails to deal with the first organisms that arose by chance on our primitive planet.

Also, go to http://www.RandallNiles.com/videos.htm to watch more videos questioning the evolutionary perspective!

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolutionary Perspective
• Evolution Documentary
• Evolutionary Leaps
• Spontaneous Generation
• Evolutionary Theory
• Randall Niles

[benalissa284632]

we have fossil record of transitional forms

[reflect7]

A few examples, please. Thanks.

[reflect7]

Why do you think I'm against science? Of course I appreciate medicines developed through great biological discoveries from great scientists such as Pasteur. But connecting biological science (current day observation of the cell, genome, etc.) to evolutionary conjecture isn't science. Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary theory (unseen movement from creature to creature) is merely a philosophical extrapolation of observed creature-bound adaption (given enough time and positive mutations, of course).

[reflect7]

The cosmos was designed. Life was designed. Mind was designed.

[gusb232]

Why does every creationist insist on using the term KIND?

KIND is not a scientifically defined term Species is.

KIND = a moving goal post.

[realhomosapiens]

@reflect7

Never mind to ask for transitional fossils, they have none, all they have are hallucinational-fossils

Synonix is a "!transitional" to whales, made your mind up, there is no way to argue with an hallucinative mind like that, or is there?

[AbrielMcPierce]

watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

more than a few examples. I know this is over a year old. I just thought you still might want some answers.

[elvismilk]

Yet you use the scientific discovery of DNA, to prove your God exists. Maybe you could hire a proof reader? So creation conjecture can use science, but science can't use science? Given enough time, hello ,don't you claim your God is eternal, so I'd think evolutionists can set up billions of years for evolutionary theory to at least seem plausible.

[elvismilk]

They sit on the shelf with the canonical texts that have Jesus speaking Greek. LOL. God left DNA for your benefit and don't forget the dinosaurs.  The Ape that no one in the Bible knew about might make one think evolution might have some merit, regardless of transitional forms not abounding in the strata. But not you, you ask us for examples, the nerve coming from the mouth of a guy who believes in the theistic monster of the Bible.

[cathy356]

No you don't.

[stevendrake01]

Haven't heard? There is no such "fossil" evidence? *slaps forhead* Sheesh!

God Bless

[JonathanMcLatchie]

I think we aught to ditch the term 'evolution' altogether when making reference to variations within created kinds, or 'baramins', as they are often called. Adaptation is a self-evident law of nature. However, it is not an example of evolution, as evolution in the molecules-to-man sense requires an increase in complexity - i.e. new information encoding for new traits. This has never been observed.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Well said, Randall. Guys...whether you like it or not, everyone (scientist or otherwise) must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable presupposed view on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning because an infinite regression is unfortunately not on the table.