Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[Buzzard3]

When you make a blanket statement like “…bedtime story for atheists and will be exploited by the Evil One” while replying directly to me, am I supposed to believe that you actually weren’t addressing any of that to me? I would say nice try, but it really wasn’t very good at all. Your turn.

In other words, you can’t find any statement of mine that shows I said you are “currently atheist”.

For the record, I didn’t imply that you are an atheist. You have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Furthermore, you’re profile says “Catholic”, so why would I think you’re an atheist?

 

[stoplooklisten]

When we all eventually die on earth and live in eternity (Science can’t observe this yet), then those in heaven will observe a scene like this where Almighty God is praised as the Creator.

     Worthy are you, Lord our God, 
     to receive glory and honor and power, 
     for you created all things; 
     because of your will they came to be and were created.”  (Revelation 4:11)

 

[whatistrue]

I didn’t imply that you are an atheist

When you continually and consistently equate evolution with atheism and then use the “dream” construction in a post directly replying to one of mine, then yes, you did.

Furthermore, you’re profile says “Catholic”, so why would I think you’re an atheist?

Because you consistently equate evolution with atheism and atheism with lying, or at least gullibility, why would you believe what I write in my profile?

Please don’t bother to try and defend this any more; I don’t and won’t buy it. If you ever decide to debate the actual subject of the thread in a reasonable manner (as in lose the ridicule and actually listen to and address the points raised) then we can talk. Until then, no.

 

[Buzzard3]

When you continually and consistently equate evolution with atheism and then use the “dream” construction in a post directly replying to one of mine, then yes, you did

Please stop talking nonsense and implying that I’m a liar.

Not all Darwinists are atheists - far from it. I have never said or implied such a thing. You misread my posts and figured me wrong, but I suspect your pride prevents you from admitting your error.

 

[whatistrue]

Not all Darwinists are atheists - far from it. I have never said or implied such a thing. You misread my posts and figured me wrong, but I suspect your pride prevents you from admitting your error.

The first sentence is true, the second is not. The first part of the third is remotely possible if you have trouble writing what you actually think, and for the second part of the third the bit about motes and beams comes to mind. But this still has nothing to do with the actual subject, which you continue to leave unaddressed. I wasn’t really planning to do this, but I am going to mute this thread and drop you in the Ignore bucket. Life is too short.

 

[Rau]

Yes, species do exist as a means to differentiate organisms using taxonomy. Just as genus and family and order etc exist for the same reason. S’been around for ages .

Yeah, but I’ve always thought the basis for distinction was a bit fluffy. A sharper tooth, a longer nose… sounds hit and miss in the sense that you could make a mistake (particularly if examining fossils).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yes, species do exist as a means to differentiate organisms using taxonomy. Just as genus and family and order etc exist for the same reason. S’been around for ages .

Yeah, but I’ve always thought the basis for distinction was a bit fluffy. A sharper tooth, a longer nose… sounds hit and miss in the sense that you could make a mistake (particularly if examining fossils).

You could show me two species that looked identical, but to a biologist…it would be as obvious as the differences between a turkey and an eagle. But yeah, some of the differences seem minor. Does it matter? To those trying to dissmiss evolution it does.

 

[Rau]

But yeah, some of the differences seem minor. Does it matter? To those trying to dissmiss evolution it does.

Those seeking to dismiss evolution seem to believe they know the “mind” of God. Why do they presume they know how God creates? I don’t know.

 

[Buzzard3]

Those seeking to dismiss evolution seem to believe they know the “mind” of God. Why do they presume they know how God creates? I don’t know

That’s funny … I thought it was only the theistic Darwinists who presumed to know how God creates …
which is ironic, because the fossil record (esp the Cambrian explosion) strongly suggests that life on earth is not the result of Darwinian evolution (universal common descent).

But Satan (“the father of lies … who deceives the whole world”) wants the world to swallow his Darwinist fairy tale, coz, as William Provine said, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” (underline “invented”).

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But yeah, some of the differences seem minor. Does it matter? To those trying to dissmiss evolution it does.

Those seeking to dismiss evolution seem to believe they know the “mind” of God. Why do they presume they know how God creates? I don’t know.

Beats me. And evolution, being a scientific method, only holds as the best explanation for the evidence we have. That’s emphasised so many times but doesn’t seem to gain traction with so many on these type of threads.

Honestly, if there was a better theory or new information then we’d all be happy to follow where that led. But some only want the science to point to God. Not realising that wherever the science leads us, God is still there for those who believe.

Science doesn’t exclude God. It’s an explanation of how He works.

 

[Buzzard3]

evolution, being a scientific method, only holds as the best explanation for the evidence we have.

… after you’ve swept the fossil record under the carpet.

“the best scientific method” to describe how the miracle of creation happened - Darwinists are so funny!

 

[Buzzard3]

Honestly, if there was a better theory or new information then we’d all be happy to follow where that led.

All puny science can do is more puny science, which can only scratch the surface of reality.
Oh, and by the way, science is puny.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

But some only want the science to point to God.

There are probably more who would like science to point to no god.

Honestly, if there was a better theory or new information then we’d all be happy to follow where that led.

If you were happy to abandon the ToE for a better theory, that suggests the evidence is not that compelling.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But some only want the science to point to God.

There are probably more who would like science to point to no god.

Honestly, if there was a better theory or new information then we’d all be happy to follow where that led.

If you were happy to abandon the ToE for a better theory, that suggests the evidence is not that compelling.

We keep telling you, Eric. Science doesn’t prove or disprove God. Anyone who tries either is on a fool’s errand.

And that’s how science works regarding the evidence. You’ve been told that multiple times as well. With multiple examples. There’s new evidence, there’s a better explanation…the theory changes to suit. They’re not cast in concrete. There are aspects of evolution that have changed over the years. This has been explained to you many times as well.

These threads are the forum’s version of Groundhog Day. We keep knocking back the same nonsensical arguments. We keep pointing out the fallacies that are posted. We keep pointing out how science actually works. We keep directing you to the evidence. We keep explaining that none of this proves or disproves God. But then clock radio kicks in… ‘They say we’re young and we don’t know…’.

And we do it all over again. Time and time again.

 

[Freddy]

I think it’s more that we take Him at His word rather than try and dig too deep on speculation that can’t be proven.

Why do I have to search for how God did it when He told us?

It’s less what you claim and more, “God says he did xyz, that’s good enough for me, I don’t need anything else.”
[/quote]

So your position becomes: ‘I don’t believe evolution happened because I read the bible literally’.

That’s fair enough. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Pattylt]

That’s fine for you but many want to know more…they want to know HOW He did it. God doesn’t answer that question but He gave us minds to try and find out!

 

[stoplooklisten]

BTW, how does natural selection work for plants? It’s not like “survival of the fittest” applies to plants like it’s claimed to apply to animals.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

BTW, how does natural selection work for plants? It’s not like “survival of the fittest” applies to plants like it’s claimed to apply to animals.

Of course it does. Why wouldn’t it?

 

[buffalo]

 

[stoplooklisten]

That’s fine for you but many want to know more…they want to know HOW He did it. God doesn’t answer that question but He gave us minds to try and find out!

Actually, God’s written Word in Scripture does provide an answer: The visible came into being through the invisible. That’s how Almighty God did it. So the visible won’t provide all the information about how it was done.

By faith we understand that the universe was ordered by the word of God, so that what is visible came into being through the invisible. (Hebrews 11:3)