Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Jbuza wrote:I'm not sure that I exactly supported it. I did say that the idea that a pari fo tigers beget all tigers, I even went on to add that I think it is possible that all cats derived from a pair of cats.
Ok, I apologize then.
Just a few questions.
Tiger's too came from cats?
And all snakes from one prototypical snake?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jbuza wrote:I'm not sure that I exactly supported it. I did say that the idea that a pari fo tigers beget all tigers, I even went on to add that I think it is possible that all cats derived from a pair of cats.
Ok, I apologize then.
Just a few questions.
Tiger's too came from cats?
And all snakes from one prototypical snake?
No problem I wasn't that clear, I really should spend more time thinking and less reacting
I don't know. I guess it seems pretty plausible to me, I mean after all the red yellow black and white varieties of man came from a pair.
Jbuza wrote:I'm not sure that I exactly supported it. I did say that the idea that a pari fo tigers beget all tigers, I even went on to add that I think it is possible that all cats derived from a pair of cats.
Ok, I apologize then.
Just a few questions.
Tiger's too came from cats?
And all snakes from one prototypical snake?
I'd say it was the rule of thumb. If some exceptions to the rule occured, we simply take a few more kinds on the ark.
Jbuza wrote:I'm not sure that I exactly supported it. I did say that the idea that a pari fo tigers beget all tigers, I even went on to add that I think it is possible that all cats derived from a pair of cats.
Ok, I apologize then.
Just a few questions.
Tiger's too came from cats?
And all snakes from one prototypical snake?
I'd say it was the rule of thumb. If some exceptions to the rule occured, we simply take a few more kinds on the ark.
Then this takes us back to the snake and frogs problem. As microevolution cannot account for the different forms. Also if all the animals came from the ark why are the marsupials primarily found in Australia?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Then this takes us back to the snake and frogs problem. As microevolution cannot account for the different forms. Also if all the animals came from the ark why are the marsupials primarily found in Australia?
What problem with snakes or frogs?
As far as Australia, I can give my take on that. The seperation of the continents carried the marsupial continent to where it is. If this happened in the cnetury or so after the flood, then, it may have carried the post flood marsupials along on the continent!
Why did they end up in a similar area as to before the flood? Perhaps the plants regrew in a similar pattern, and the ideal habitat for marsupials and food, etc was there again. Some trees, for example aspens, have an underground organism, and when the flood or fire is over they grow up again. Does the bible mention how the plants were regrown? I don't think so. One way ot another, it seems God took care of that department. One thing we do notice is the continued fast growth at the post flood time as well. The bird sent out a week or so had found no trees. Another one was sent out a week or two, or so later, and did find a fresh twig of a tree. Pretty good, a tree in a week!
Ok Bgood just suppose for a second that creation took place and that macroevolution has never taken place. Would their still be natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, mutation?
I'm not to sure, but It seems at least plausible that God could have created "kinds" and that all animals are derived from kinds reproducing to show the variety within kinds of animals.
I had always invisioned God creating a far greater variety than 1 pair of dogs from which all dogs came, or one pair of frogs from which all frogs came, but I'm not to sure. Perhaps I have reacted so strongly to evolutionary origins that I have discounted the processes of change that that theory was based upon more than I should have.
Jbuza wrote:Ok Bgood just suppose for a second that creation took place and that macroevolution has never taken place. Would their still be natural selection, survival of the fittest, adaptation, mutation?
I think so.
Jbuza wrote:I'm not to sure, but It seems at least plausible that God could have created "kinds" and that all animals are derived from kinds reproducing to show the variety within kinds of animals.
It is possible.
Jbuza wrote:I had always invisioned God creating a far greater variety than 1 pair of dogs from which all dogs came, or one pair of frogs from which all frogs came, but I'm not to sure.
However based on observations grouping all frogs together seems arbitrary.
Jbuza wrote:Perhaps I have reacted so strongly to evolutionary origins that I have discounted the processes of change that that theory was based upon more than I should have.
The evidence is there, you are free to reach your own conclusions.
=)
Welcome to the open forum of ideas.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
15 paragraphs sum it up, not 7. August has good sources, all evolutionists are atheists, I have come to realize that. Anyone who claims they hold spirituality derived from supernatural force, religion, faith, etc... is still an atheist believing in evolution. People try too hard to fit evolution in with the Bible. Does the Bible mention evolution??? I don't care about "yom", that doesn't matter, all evolution is, any way you cut it, is atheism even though evolutionists "claim" evolution doesn't deny the existence of God.
15 paragraphs sum it up, not 7. August has good sources, all evolutionists are atheists, I have come to realize that. Anyone who claims they hold spirituality derived from supernatural force, religion, faith, etc... is still an atheist believing in evolution. People try too hard to fit evolution in with the Bible. Does the Bible mention evolution??? I don't care about "yom", that doesn't matter, all evolution is, any way you cut it, is atheism even though evolutionists "claim" evolution doesn't deny the existence of God.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
15 paragraphs sum it up, not 7. August has good sources, all evolutionists are atheists, I have come to realize that. Anyone who claims they hold spirituality derived from supernatural force, religion, faith, etc... is still an atheist believing in evolution. People try too hard to fit evolution in with the Bible. Does the Bible mention evolution??? I don't care about "yom", that doesn't matter, all evolution is, any way you cut it, is atheism even though evolutionists "claim" evolution doesn't deny the existence of God.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions.
PROVE to me evolution IS NOT atheism... I believe it is. I want a serious minimum of 50 links proving to me evolution IS NOT atheism from non-biased sources.
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:However based on observations grouping all frogs together seems arbitrary.
I agree, I think it is somewhat arbitrary also; I don't know that I agree that God made only one type of cat, horse, frog, fish. I find it quite interesting though. It seems to me that he would create a wonderous variety of all kinds of life, that is what I envision, but I think it is plausible that it could have been 1 pair of eash kind. OF course defining kind is also somewhat arbitrary.
Bgood wrote:
The evidence is there, you are free to reach your own conclusions.
=)
Welcome to the open forum of ideas.
I have never been against the open forum of ideas, I mustn't believe them all and find some of them comical, outlandish, and far fetched.
Thinker wrote:PROVE to me evolution IS NOT atheism... I believe it is. I want a serious minimum of 50 links proving to me evolution IS NOT atheism from non-biased sources.
IYHO, the thousands of Catholics who believe in evolution are atheists ?
