Fossil record better interpreted

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:44 pm

Jbuza wrote:OF course defining kind is also somewhat arbitrary.

No, not at all. Defining kind is easy - descendants of an original pair created by God. The difficult part would be figuring out to what kind a given animal belongs. [Defining guilt and innocence for a specific suspect and a specific crime is easy; figuring out if that suspect is guilty or innocent is often exceedingly difficult.]

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:49 pm

In spite of a desire to attack the fool Darwin wasn't a complete imbicile. I mean He did make some observations that indicate some mechanisims are at work in the natural world. I think that the biggest and greatest of these is adaptation.

I do have a slight problem with adaptation in that it ignores which is cause and which is effect. If I were an all knowing creator and in the wisdom of my creation I saw fit to create a marine iguana to inhabit a place in my creation that would be doable. If I wanted to curse a snake and cause it to crawl on its belly that would be doable.

The problem is that examining those creatures from a human perspective they would appear to have adapted to their envrionment. So it is hard to determine where divine design ends and animal ability to adapt begins.

Jbuza · Post by **Jbuza** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:51 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
Jbuza wrote:OF course defining kind is also somewhat arbitrary.
No, not at all. Defining kind is easy - descendants of an original pair created by God. The difficult part would be figuring out to what kind a given animal belongs. [Defining guilt and innocence for a specific suspect and a specific crime is easy; figuring out if that suspect is guilty or innocent is often exceedingly difficult.]

Quite correct. It is hard to determine if an animal is a kind in itself or a variety within a kind.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:54 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Seeing that it takes over 7 paragraphs to reach this conclusion it appears to be more of a rationalization than a proof.
Andrew Wiles wrote: Fermat couldn't possibly have had this proof. It's 150 pages long.

Andrew Wiles, hmm, the first name rings a bell, the last name doesn't quoted along with BGoodForGoodSake

. This proves nothing, what was the point of this?

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:57 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Seeing that it takes over 7 paragraphs to reach this conclusion it appears to be more of a rationalization than a proof.
Andrew Wiles wrote: Fermat couldn't possibly have had this proof. It's 150 pages long.

lol

I guess the days of elegant 17th century proofs are over.
=(

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 9:58 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
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 ?

Catholics didn't use to accept evolution, but now because it is being pushed on everyone, they have been pushed to accept it - see here. Perversion of religion and church. I think that if they (and they do) believe in evolution AND God, that wouldn't make sense. Where dose the Bible teach evolution??? PROOF, PROOF, PROOF, evolution is in no way atheism from non-biased sources, 50 minimum links or 150 or more.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:15 pm

sandy_mcd wrote:
Jbuza wrote:OF course defining kind is also somewhat arbitrary.
No, not at all. Defining kind is easy - descendants of an original pair created by God. The difficult part would be figuring out to what kind a given animal belongs. [Defining guilt and innocence for a specific suspect and a specific crime is easy; figuring out if that suspect is guilty or innocent is often exceedingly difficult.]

Excellent observation.

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:30 pm

...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:34 pm

Thinker wrote:...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).

A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:36 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).
A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)

If you present no proof, evolution is stone-cold atheism.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:38 pm

Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).
A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)
If you present no proof, evolution is stone-cold atheism.

I suppose that you found Augusts post convincing then?

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:41 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).
A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)
If you present no proof, evolution is stone-cold atheism.
I suppose that you found Augusts post convincing then?

Yes, I did, please SHOW me where "yom" or in the Bible as we have it says "and God evolved the first life on the first 100 million years..." or something like that.

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:42 pm

Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:...and all the atheists here ignore me on my posts within this thread... So I guess failure to show proof from non-biased sources that evolution in any form and kind IS NOT atheism is indeed atheism. You are all atheists!!! Your god is nature, you believe in no divine being (God).
A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)
If you present no proof, evolution is stone-cold atheism.
I suppose that you found Augusts post convincing then?
Yes, I did, please SHOW me where "yom" or in the Bible as we have it says "and God evolved the first life on the first 100 million years..." or something like that.

Not everything is in the bible. Take gravity, and the fact that the Earth orbits around the sun for instance. Does that mean that those are inherently athiestic too?

Believer · Post by **Believer** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:47 pm

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: A non-biased source would not refer to either side, so would not proove that evolution does not equate with atheism. Therefore it would be difficult to find 2 links let alone 50.
=)
If you present no proof, evolution is stone-cold atheism.
I suppose that you found Augusts post convincing then?
Yes, I did, please SHOW me where "yom" or in the Bible as we have it says "and God evolved the first life on the first 100 million years..." or something like that.
Not everything is in the bible. Take gravity, and the fact that the Earth orbits around the sun for instance. Does that mean that those are inherently athiestic too?

No, but you are working your way there as well as all these "scientists".

BGoodForGoodSake · Post by **BGoodForGoodSake** » Tue Nov 22, 2005 10:50 pm

Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Thinker wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: I suppose that you found Augusts post convincing then?
Yes, I did, please SHOW me where "yom" or in the Bible as we have it says "and God evolved the first life on the first 100 million years..." or something like that.
Not everything is in the bible. Take gravity, and the fact that the Earth orbits around the sun for instance. Does that mean that those are inherently athiestic too?
No, but you are working your way there as well as all these "scientists".

I sence some hatred in your post, please correct me if I am wrong?
=(