Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:You just doubt the Gap Theory will be more believable,that is all.But you have probably never seen a debate between a Gap Theorist and somebody who believes the theory of evolution ...

True, I haven't, so I thought I'd look one up, but YouTube doesn't seem to have any. It seems that the most vociferous of the opponents of Gap Theory are other biblical literalists.

... but once the evidence is laid out the Gap Theory is more believable and the Gap Theorists wins the debate based on the evidence ...

No. There isn't any evidence. We keep asking you for some and all you do is ask questions or make unsubstantiated assertions.

... and fossils is just one area of evidence I usually bring up but fossils alone are evidence for a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life that lived in it,but there is more evidence.

There is no dispute that the earth millions of years ago was very different from modern earth. That is not Gap Theory. The dispute is about the possibility of the instantaneous destruction of one world and its instantaneous replacement by a different one. For which there is no evidence.

Also fossils were not an important part of the formulation of evolution which is why Charles Darwin admitted there were no transitional fossils,but predicted they would be found ...

This is factually incorrect. The emergence of geology, and the discovery of fossils within stratigraphic layers had generated evolutionary ideas long before On The Origin Of Species, and Darwin uses fossils to help support his argument throughout. A good example plucked more or less at random is:

"Let us now look to the mutual affinities of extinct and living species. They all fall into one grand natural system; and this fact is at once explained on the principle of descent. The more ancient any form is, the more, as a general rule, it differs from living forms. But, as Buckland long ago remarked, all fossils can be classed either in still existing groups, or between them. That the extinct forms of life help to fill up the wide intervals between existing genera, families, and orders, cannot be disputed. For if we confine our attention either to the living or to the extinct alone, the series is far less perfect than if we combine both into one general system. With respect to the Vertebrata, whole pages could be filled with striking illustrations from our great palæontologist, Owen, showing how extinct animals fall in between existing groups. Cuvier ranked the Ruminants and Pachyderms, as the two most distinct orders of mammals; but Owen has discovered so many fossil links, that he has had to alter the whole classification of these two orders; and has placed certain pachyderms in the same sub-order with ruminants: for example, he dissolves by fine gradations the apparently wide difference between the pig and the camel." [Emphasis mine]

... but they never were,instead the fossils were just put together to make them look like transitional fossils.

Unless you are accusing paleontologists of devising endless numbers of Piltdown-style chimera, this is meaningless, and if you are so accusing them, it is untrue.

But it makes no different because a former lost world is more believable,still.

Not to me, it isn't.

You evolutionists are trying to rewrite history but all I'd have to do is read "The origin of species" to the audience to prove Charles Darwin acknowledged there were no transitional fossils,but insisted they would be found.He even said we would have grounds to reject evolution if they were not found,therefore evolution should have been rejected long ago when they were not found.You say I make baseless assertions but the bottom line is the fossils do not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.I'm just using the fossils right now because they are evidence that a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life in it existed just like the Gap Theory interpretation predicts.

You see the bible tells us a former world perished and in order for there to have been a former world we need evidence to confirm that there was indeed a former world that perished and fossils like hominids,dinosaurs,trilobites,etc prove there was indeed a former world and the life in the former world is not related to life in this world,nor does it have anything to do with this world we live in now.

Evolution has blinded you to the truth and this is why it is assumed the hominids are related to man.Buckland rejected Evolution and so did Lyell for most of his life,he only came to consider it possibly true after years of discussions with Darwin.It is not true that the fossils were evidence for evolution,no matter how they were grouped together.they later became evidence after the evidence was taken and made to fit into the theory of evolution.

Those who reject The Gap Theory for other creation interpretations run into problems and also try to make them apply to this world tooWhether they are old earth or young earth but in order to do so they must ignore 2nd Peter 3:3-4 in order to do so and a lot of times it causes them problems with interpretation of Genesis,as well as timing issues that don't seem to match up.Ocamm's Razor which IMO is the Gap Theory fixes all of these problems while making things simple.We have the bible telling us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it,until it perished and God made this world and the life in this world.It is easy and simple.

Young earth creationists must try to make all of this evidence of extinct life fit into a 1500 year period between Adam and Noah's flood which is impossible.There is more life extinct than all of the life on earth now and all of the life that has lived on the earth in a 6-10,000 year old age of the earth for your interpretation. We know based on this the earth is atleast millions of years old.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You evolutionists are trying to rewrite history but all I'd have to do is read "The origin of species" to the audience to prove Charles Darwin acknowledged there were no transitional fossils, but insisted they would be found.

Please don't; your audience would laugh at you. The single short passage above says that the transitional fossils between various species are sometimes so numerous that even convinced creationists were forced to rethink their classifications. There were huge gaps in the fossil record, which Darwin plainly acknowledged, but the idea that he said there were no transitional fossils is transparently untrue.

He even said we would have grounds to reject evolution if they were not found,therefore evolution should have been rejected long ago when they were not found.

He did. And he was right. But they have been found, by the bucketload.

You say I make baseless assertions but the bottom line is the fossils do not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.

That is exactly the sort of baseless assertion I mean.

I'm just using the fossils right now because they are evidence that a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life in it existed just like the Gap Theory interpretation predicts.

And that's another one.

You see the bible tells us a former world perished and in order for there to have been a former world we need evidence to confirm that there was indeed a former world that perished and fossils like hominids,dinosaurs,trilobites,etc prove there was indeed a former world ...

Yes, so far so good...

and the life in the former world is not related to life in this world,nor does it have anything to do with this world we live in now.

And no. Now you've spoilt it with another baseless assertion.

Evolution has blinded you to the truth and this is why it is assumed the hominids are related to man.

Nope.

Buckland rejected Evolution and so did Lyell for most of his life,he only came to consider it possibly true after years of discussions with Darwin.It is not true that the fossils were evidence for evolution,no matter how they were grouped together.they later became evidence after the evidence was taken and made to fit into the theory of evolution.

This is all wrong. You really ought to read an account of 19th century geology. I recommend "The Map That Changed The World" by Simon Winchester.

Those who reject The Gap Theory for other creation interpretations run into problems and also try to make them apply to this world too. Whether they are old earth or young earth but in order to do so they must ignore 2nd Peter 3:3-4 in order to do so and a lot of times it causes them problems with interpretation of Genesis,as well as timing issues that don't seem to match up. Ocamm's Razor which IMO is the Gap Theory fixes all of these problems while making things simple.We have the bible telling us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it,until it perished and God made this world and the life in this world.It is easy and simple.

You don't establish the truth of a proposition simply by reiterating it.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?

Which part? The tacit admission?

No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.

Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?

For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .

So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.

With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?

It is ok to go binary on this.

Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )

Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:
Which part? The tacit admission?

No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.

Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?

For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .

So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.

With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?

It is ok to go binary on this.

Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )

Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.

Audie,

Start at the beginning. The Big Bang supports creation.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:
Perhaps you can share with us the process by which you determined that to be a fact?

Which part? The tacit admission?

No, the tacit admission I took as your opinion so I dismissed it (as fact). I mean the underlined assertion.

Ok solve both with one fell, as they say, swoop; what philosophy-generated data is there?

For a young earth (or an old earth, or any age of any earth), none. Nor can there be. Nor would any young earth creationist claim that they get any data from "'philosophizing' about an uncaused causing-thing." (Nor would theistic evolutionists or day-age creationists, or framework theorists, or gappists, or anyone else.) It's sort of irrelevant to the question . . .

For the uncaused cause, however, Audie, there's a boat load of data otherwise known as truth. But you don't worry about that Audie, cause the P word just ain't your thang, I understand.

Audie wrote:So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.

With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?

It is ok to go binary on this.

Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )

Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.

Careful not to equivocate. I didn't say that there is no data to support creationism. Plenty of people would say that there is. (And I'm not one of them, nor am I one who denies it. I make no claim on it whatsoever.) I am saying that philosophy does not provide data for a specific question within creationism debates, i.e., whether God created six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago or whether He did it over six days or six eons or anything like that. You can't infer from that "there is not a known datum point in the known universe for creationism." Still less can you say that inference is just "other" and "shorter words" for the substantive point I made.

Nothing says you have to take up the point I made, of course. But if you do choose not to respond to it--and that's perfectly okay--you really ought not misrepresent it instead. I'd rather you not be the philosophical version of ACB. You see how embarrassing he is when he talks about geology. He'd do much better to shut up about it, and if not, then ask questions. His misrepresentations just show the foolishness of his pet theory. That's what always happens with misrepresentations, and I tend to think you are a whole lot better than that, even if you don't take philosophy terribly seriously.

edit:

As an aside, to add to Byblos' post above, if you want to understand "creationism" not in terms of the narrow definition where we are asking if God created X number of years ago in X number of days/eons (so "young earth creationism" or "old earth creationism")--that is, if you want to understand "creationism" in the broadest sense--then I do claim that philosophy provides a lot of data. In fact, we could prove creationism in that sense even if we affirmed that the universe has always existed. But that would require walking through the metaphysical arguments in favor of the claims (and they are certainly not SEDI-styled claims), which is something you've always declined to do. Maybe one of these days you'll take the time to work through some of them.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:You evolutionists are trying to rewrite history but all I'd have to do is read "The origin of species" to the audience to prove Charles Darwin acknowledged there were no transitional fossils, but insisted they would be found.

Please don't; your audience would laugh at you. The single short passage above says that the transitional fossils between various species are sometimes so numerous that even convinced creationists were forced to rethink their classifications. There were huge gaps in the fossil record, which Darwin plainly acknowledged, but the idea that he said there were no transitional fossils is transparently untrue.

He even said we would have grounds to reject evolution if they were not found,therefore evolution should have been rejected long ago when they were not found.

He did. And he was right. But they have been found, by the bucketload.

You say I make baseless assertions but the bottom line is the fossils do not tell us life evolves,that is evolution imagination.

That is exactly the sort of baseless assertion I mean.

I'm just using the fossils right now because they are evidence that a former world totally different than this world,with different kinds of life in it existed just like the Gap Theory interpretation predicts.

And that's another one.

You see the bible tells us a former world perished and in order for there to have been a former world we need evidence to confirm that there was indeed a former world that perished and fossils like hominids,dinosaurs,trilobites,etc prove there was indeed a former world ...

Yes, so far so good...

and the life in the former world is not related to life in this world,nor does it have anything to do with this world we live in now.

And no. Now you've spoilt it with another baseless assertion.

Evolution has blinded you to the truth and this is why it is assumed the hominids are related to man.

Nope.

Buckland rejected Evolution and so did Lyell for most of his life,he only came to consider it possibly true after years of discussions with Darwin.It is not true that the fossils were evidence for evolution,no matter how they were grouped together.they later became evidence after the evidence was taken and made to fit into the theory of evolution.

This is all wrong. You really ought to read an account of 19th century geology. I recommend "The Map That Changed The World" by Simon Winchester.

Those who reject The Gap Theory for other creation interpretations run into problems and also try to make them apply to this world too. Whether they are old earth or young earth but in order to do so they must ignore 2nd Peter 3:3-4 in order to do so and a lot of times it causes them problems with interpretation of Genesis,as well as timing issues that don't seem to match up. Ocamm's Razor which IMO is the Gap Theory fixes all of these problems while making things simple.We have the bible telling us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it,until it perished and God made this world and the life in this world.It is easy and simple.

You don't establish the truth of a proposition simply by reiterating it.

Nope they would laugh at you Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils.You are ignoring what his book said,which would hurt your credibility not mine.I have already made my case and it is simple to understand with evidence to confirm it.I can only present it to you and you can reject it to believe what you choose to.No need to repeat myself except to say this the bible tells us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it.It is simple and easy and without getting into other evidence.I've already made my case while you just choose to deny it.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:So, in other and shorter words, there is not a known datum point in the known universe
that supports creationism.

With as noted, God , bible, the angels, all of science, all of reality for creationism,
why cant at least one bit of data be found?

It is ok to go binary on this.

Its not ok to go "SEDI" ( same evidence, different intdrpretation )

Not that you would resort to such a shabby trick.

Careful not to equivocate. I didn't say that there is no data to support creationism. Plenty of people would say that there is. (And I'm not one of them, nor am I one who denies it. I make no claim on it whatsoever.) I am saying that philosophy does not provide data for a specific question within creationism debates, i.e., whether God created six thousand years ago or fourteen billion years ago or whether He did it over six days or six eons or anything like that.

Philosophy is like about the logical framework if you will, what we use to reason what is/isn't possible. Without real world data like that offered by science and our experiences in life, philosophy leaves us with open possibilities but no idea on what the actual world is like.

It is an important point to understand that philosophy provides the framework if you will of what is or isn't possible in reality, and our experiences and knowledge of the world colours that picture in. Thus, science depends upon philosophy for possibilities, but science helps us colour in which picture of reality seems most true.

Now with that in mind, YEC is logical -- that is while far-out especially given the picture we understand of our world -- there is nothing that is logically contradictory about God miraculously created the universe 6,000 years ago and making it appear old for whatever reason.

On the other hand, the universe just popping into existence from nothing, such isn't even a possibility. You don't need science to tell you that, the framework of logic and reason tell us if there's nothing, then nothing there will be.

Take a guess at which belief I'd consider to be the more foolish one.

Kurieuo wrote:
Now with that in mind, YEC is logical -- that is while far-out especially given the picture we understand of our world -- there is nothing that is logically contradictory about God miraculously created the universe 6,000 years ago and making it appear old for whatever reason.

There's nothing logically contradictory about God creating the universe 6,000 years ago, but making it appear billions of years old?

So, God being purposely deceptive isn't logically contradictory to you?

Ah, Rick is going to try to put God under a moral obligation in the realm of logical necessity . . .

abelcainsbrother wrote:Nope they would laugh at you Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils.You are ignoring what his book said,which would hurt your credibility not mine.

Darwin did indeed devote an entire chapter of On The Origin Of Species to "The Imperfection of the Geological Record", in which he regretted the paucity of transitional fossils. You seem to think that this means he thought there weren't any at all, whereas, as I illustrated above, he mentioned several examples in which the fossil record was less imperfect. Even during the process of writing the chapter he was delighted to find his own chief objection to his theory becoming weaker with the discovery of two new fossils in precisely the circumstances in which they should have arisen.

I have already made my case and it is simple to understand with evidence to confirm it.I can only present it to you and you can reject it to believe what you choose to.No need to repeat myself except to say this the bible tells us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it.It is simple and easy and without getting into other evidence.I've already made my case while you just choose to deny it.

I do not choose simply to deny your case. That would be to make the same kind of unsupported assertion as yourself. I think you are wrong on the basis of the lack of evidence you have presented. Your sole evidence for the total destruction of one world and the formation of the next seems to be what you perceive as a lack of transitional fossils as presented. However this is wholly unsatisfactory. The gaps in the fossil record for particular groups of animal appear, just as we would expect, throughout the whole time for which we have any preserved remains, not in one single global layer which would support your case. Even at periods of mass extinction, the last one being some 65 million years ago, a quarter of the living things appear to have lived through the event comparatively unchanged.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Nope they would laugh at you Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils.You are ignoring what his book said,which would hurt your credibility not mine.

Darwin did indeed devote an entire chapter of On The Origin Of Species to "The Imperfection of the Geological Record", in which he regretted the paucity of transitional fossils. You seem to think that this means he thought there weren't any at all, whereas, as I illustrated above, he mentioned several examples in which the fossil record was less imperfect. Even during the process of writing the chapter he was delighted to find his own chief objection to his theory becoming weaker with the discovery of two new fossils in precisely the circumstances in which they should have arisen.

I have already made my case and it is simple to understand with evidence to confirm it.I can only present it to you and you can reject it to believe what you choose to.No need to repeat myself except to say this the bible tells us a former world perished and fossils are evidence for the kinds of life that lived in it.It is simple and easy and without getting into other evidence.I've already made my case while you just choose to deny it.

I do not choose simply to deny your case. That would be to make the same kind of unsupported assertion as yourself. I think you are wrong on the basis of the lack of evidence you have presented. Your sole evidence for the total destruction of one world and the formation of the next seems to be what you perceive as a lack of transitional fossils as presented. However this is wholly unsatisfactory. The gaps in the fossil record for particular groups of animal appear, just as we would expect, throughout the whole time for which we have any preserved remains, not in one single global layer which would support your case. Even at periods of mass extinction, the last one being some 65 million years ago, a quarter of the living things appear to have lived through the event comparatively unchanged.

The lack of transitional fossils greatly troubled Darwin and they still trouble us today.Like I said before you're just looking at the evidence from a different perspective.You're looking at the fossils like they told us life evolves and I'm saying they don't.It is just using much of the very same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence tells us.You say the fossils somehow confirms life evolves even though there are no transitional fossils at all.

All fossils found are all fully formed creatures that were just different kinds of life and there is no evidence of transition with any of them or nothing about any of them that would lead us to believe they were evolving,I do use dinosaurs a lot,but think of any fossil and the same thing applies,dinosaurs were fully formed creatures just as they were,regardless of the strata they were found in. This is because they really have nothing to do with evolution and instead they are just simply life that lived in the former world at one time until they died up until the former world perished.

In order to have a world it must have life in it and I'm telling you the fossils simply show the life that is needed in order to have a world.This is just the evidence of the life that lived in it,without getting into other evidence.I do not feel the need to have to provide more evidence at this time because I've already explained my hypothesis and have given evidence that confirms it and it is more believable of a theory than the theory of evolution with just fossils for evidence right now without any other evidence.

Already people are saying to their self could there really be a lost world that got overlooked? And they can know that if there was it had totally different kinds of life in it than this world does. Those who don't are just biased and are choosing to overlook the possibility that we have a real lost world that got overlooked,for whatever reason.

Also just because you believe life evolves and you must keep life alive,at least some life through the extinction events does not make it true.Stop looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.Remove evolution thinking from your mind and all we really see is mass extinctions and it is simply that,no need to keep life alive through them all just because you believe life evolves.Especially when not one scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves after 150 years of believing it does and trying to demonstrate it does only to come up empty handed.They don't even know still to this day if life even evolves,yet they'll look at the evidence and blend their evolution imagination into it,which is why no matter the extinction event they'll always make sure at least some life survives it so that life can evolve.It is looking at the evidence from the wrong perspective and it is a lot like when people add things on to God's word.It causes them to interpret it wrong.

Audie wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about Adam and Eve, evolution and so on but my thinking is that is it not possible that any preexisting humans had a soul but weren't made in His image.
The biggest mystery to me is why. Animals, I get, God gave them to us to love and learn from but preexisting humans. Why?

There has been life on earth for many hundreds of millions of years.

During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged, others were not successful and disappeared.

Yet others show a succession of changes, then the line died out, or, a succession of changes that continued up to this day.

The primates are not an exception, there is a fossil record for them too.

WHY were there hominid ancestors? Because they could survive and reproduce.

IF they had not existed,you wouldnt either.

What is the mystery?

'that some successful designs' have remained more or less unchanged. Designs require a Designer.
The 'hundreds of millions of years' -- is trying to fit enough good mutations into mankinds' history to get us to where we look like we do Now. There would Never be 'enough time' to have enough good mutations to do that.
Maybe we simply need to accept that 'enough good mutations' Can't / Didn't 'evolve' us into what we are Now.

The word "design" is not ideal, but lets not play equivocation.

The "design requires a designer" is, sorry, but a tiresome old saw. Every snowflake is designed
too? What word would not imply, to you, a designer? I will use that one.

Hundreds of millions of years is not some dishonest bit of force fitting.
There has been life for that long.

Life of the past was very different from life of today. Just a fact.

That life on earth has undergone a series of changes is beyond anything
resembling reasonable dispute, hollow assertions to the contrary not
with, as they say, standing.

I don't think God designs every snowflake, but he did design snowflakes to form uniquely. Just as he designed the weather to work as it does, without directing every cloud and raindrop. He has occasionally intervened in the usual order of things, though.

abelcainsbrother wrote:The lack of transitional fossils greatly troubled Darwin ...

That's true, which is why he devoted a chapter of his book to explaining why it shouldn't.

... and they still trouble us today.

No. Not any more. The fossil record is being discovered exactly as we might expect if evolution is an accurate explanation for the development of life.

Like I said before you're just looking at the evidence from a different perspective.You're looking at the fossils like they told us life evolves and I'm saying they don't.It is just using much of the very same evidence and coming to a different conclusion about what the evidence tells us.

As I understand it, you think that at one or more times in the past, one completely different world was quite suddenly transformed into a completely different one, which then remained more or less in stasis until the next one. For the evidence to substantiate this, we would need to see the gaps in the fossil record to be all at the same time, all around the world, but this is not what we observe. Different strata in different places appear to show 'gaps' in the fossil record at various different times at various different places for different groups of animals. This does not suggest universal wipeouts.

You say the fossils somehow confirms life evolves even though there are no transitional fossils at all. All fossils found are all fully formed creatures that were just different kinds of life and there is no evidence of transition with any of them or nothing about any of them that would lead us to believe they were evolving.

I don't think you understand the process you disbelieve in at all. The trouble comes with the word 'transitional', which you completely misrepresent. All creatures are of course 'fully formed' and all creatures are, in a sense, transitional. Those creatures that paddled about in the muddy shallows off North India were just as fully formed, and just as adapted to their environment, as their descendants the oceanic whales. Their ancestors were entirely terrestrial, and no doubt some of their cousins munched the seaweed off the rocks. This littoral life came to an end with the closing of the Indian and Tibetan plates, and only their descendants survived, swimming in the deep ocean. Similarly, those feathered animals which fluttered off trees and landed clumsily on the ground to chew small invertebrates with teeth were sufficiently well adapted to their lifestyle to survive for a couple of million years or so, before the even better adapted wings of some of their descendants, and the loss of teeth altogether, provided too much competition and they became extinct. Those birds became extinct in their turn, and there is no reason to suppose that the same won't happen to us.

I do use dinosaurs a lot,but think of any fossil and the same thing applies,dinosaurs were fully formed creatures just as they were,regardless of the strata they were found in. This is because they really have nothing to do with evolution and instead they are just simply life that lived in the former world at one time until they died up until the former world perished.

I don't think you're strengthening your case by simply saying the same thing over and over again. At least I introduce new ideas into the discussion from time to time.

In order to have a world it must have life in it and I'm telling you ...

You are. And I'm listening. But you're not producing any evidence to support your belief.

... the fossils simply show the life that is needed in order to have a world.This is just the evidence of the life that lived in it,without getting into other evidence.I do not feel the need to have to provide more evidence ...

More evidence? You haven't provided any evidence at all. You have simply denied, but not refuted, my evidence to the contrary, and made arbitrary unsupported assertions.

... at this time because I've already explained my hypothesis and have given evidence that confirms it and it is more believable of a theory than the theory of evolution with just fossils for evidence right now without any other evidence.

Well it isn't, is it? If it was a believable hypothesis then people would believe in it. But they don't.

Already people are saying to their self could there really be a lost world that got overlooked?

Vanishingly few.

And they can know that if there was it had totally different kinds of life in it than this world does. Those who don't are just biased and are choosing to overlook the possibility that we have a real lost world that got overlooked,for whatever reason.

No, abelcainsbrother, evidence, evidence, evidence. You really really need some.

Also just because you believe life evolves and you must keep life alive,at least some life through the extinction events does not make it true.Stop looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.Remove evolution thinking from your mind and all we really see is mass extinctions and it is simply that,no need to keep life alive through them all just because you believe life evolves.

We know life survived through mass extinctions by means of the fossil record, not because of a pre-conceived belief.

Especially when not one scientist has ever demonstrated life evolves after 150 years of believing it does and trying to demonstrate it does only to come up empty handed.They don't even know still to this day if life even evolves,yet they'll look at the evidence and blend their evolution imagination into it,which is why no matter the extinction event they'll always make sure at least some life survives it so that life can evolve.It is looking at the evidence from the wrong perspective and it is a lot like when people add things on to God's word.It causes them to interpret it wrong.

None of this is even remotely justifiable, but I'm not sure it is worth explaining why.

Jac3510 wrote:Ah, Rick is going to try to put God under a moral obligation in the realm of logical necessity . . .

Sorry Jac. I don't even know what that means. Speak dumber, so I can understand.

God creating the earth 6,000 years ago, but making it look like it's billions of years old, is deceptive. Just like if He created light in transit to make stars look like they're hundreds of thousands of light years away, when He didn't even create the stars.

That's deceptive.

And I don't find that logical, nor fitting with God.

******edit

I think I figured out what you were getting at. I'm not putting God under a moral obligation.

But logical necessity, maybe. But in not sure. I'm saying that God cannot lie or deceive. I think you have helped me understand that with your Divine Simplicity book.