I'm just asking why you think it's there and what, in the most general terms, it means.

This is more like asking a guy at a party what he does for a living. He says something like, "I'm a doctor; I try to help people who are sick or injured." He doesn't have to tell you how he does that for each disease.

Sorry, I don't know what you are thinking of or what you are expecting. You need to be more specific.

Again, as I said to Akoue, why don't you do as you did last time. Rather than ask me some incredibly vague question, why not give your perspective on the topic focus that is of interest to you and I'd be happy to respond, as I did before when you posted on what you thought that the fossil record looked like.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but I have looked at a lot of aspects of the fossil record and just asking someone argue question like that will get you an equally vague answer like - they are there because the organic material was replaced by minerals. An answer that gives as much information as the question.

So let's not run around in circles - get to the point. Give us your viewpoint on the area of interest and that will help focus the discussion.

scaredypants
That a day in God's time could be billions of years is believed by a great many people including me.
The bible even says that a day in God's time is a thousand years and that was written thousands of years ago when a billion of anything was not a popular belief.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

The context of that passage is in reference to how longsuffering God is to sinful man.

2 Peter 3:6-9
. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
NKJV

The creation account is specific that the days are night and day, for example:

Gen 1:13
13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.
NKJV

What I think is odd maybe because I'm "one those people" but I don't see how anyone of reason could believe in creation or intelligent design even people that believe in a god.

Follow me here lets say we all agree that there is a god for a moment and that he is the all powerful perfect creator of everything. So far he has stuck with a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one; why in the middle would he change that design? It wouldn't make sense why make everything else a natural solution but cheat on the design for life? Why not use your power and make if follow rules and appear natural just like everything else?

What I think is odd maybe because I'm "one those people" but I don't see how anyone of reason could believe in creation or intelligent design even people that believe in a god.

And I don't see how anyone of logic or reason could fail to see the evidence of God.


Follow me here lets say we all agree that there is a god for a moment and that he is the all powerful perfect creator of everything. So far he has stuck with a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one; why in the middle would he change that design? It wouldn't make sense why make everything else a natural solution but cheat on the design for life? Why not use your power and make if follow rules and appear natural just like everything else?

I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain your premises. What are you using as the basis for your premises.

Premises:

1) God created a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one

2) In the middle would he changed that design

3) He cheated on the design for life?

Please tell us what you were thinking of when you posted these premises, and please be specific with examples, and then we can respond more directly to your intent.

Thanks.

A friend who goes to church every week said the following in the body of an email. I would like to share it because I think it's one perspective. It also surprised me that he said this.


I like the spiritual messages at church and I like Richard Dawkins' fierce
Anti-religious arguments. I love science and have not reconciled it all.
When the Dalai Lama was asked what he would believe if science showed that
Some Tibetan belief were false, he said he'd believe science. Good
Buddhist! That works for me.

Sorry, I don't know what you are thinking of or what you are expecting. You need to be more specific.



I think I've been very specific. I am asking a big question, though, not a narrow one. I am not interested in why you think science's conclusions on this topic are mistaken. I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes.

You are certainly not obliged to answer the question. No one here is, of course! But if you don't answer, I will assume you have no explanation for why there is a fossil record, let alone why it takes the form it does. Since you've posted at such length on this topic, I am skeptical of the suggestion that your reluctance to answer is for lack of time and space in which to explain your views.

I think I've been very specific. I am asking a big question, though, not a narrow one. I am not interested in why you think science's conclusions on this topic are mistaken. I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes.

I disagree that you have been specific. Maybe you think that the topic area is much narrower than it is.

Difference types of fossils form differently. So there are various contributors. To get a good fossil, sometimes which includes skin imprints, requires very specific conditions - typically a disaster that covers the plant or animal very rapidly, before decay becomes an issue. This can happen in many ways. A recent even, Mount St. Helens showed an excellent example of how this can occur, with multiples varied layers in a matter of minutes. Others can be produced following a volcanic eruption, and being buried by ash. A major flood is another means.

I disagree that you have been specific. Maybe you think that the topic area is much narrower than it is.

Difference types of fossils form differently. So there are various contributors. To get a good fossil, sometimes which includes skin imprints, requires very specific conditions - typically a disaster that covers the plant or animal very rapidly, before decay becomes an issue. This can happen in many ways. A recent even, Mount St. Helens showed an excellent example of how this can occur, with multiples varied layers in a matter of minutes. Others can be produced following a volcanic eruption, and being buried by ash. A major flood is another means.

I don't understand why you are explaining how fossils form. Most of us already know about that. What we don't know, is what you think they are. You already know what scientists think fossils are. You obviously don't agree that the fossil record is a history of life on Earth. So what's the alternative?

I don't follow your reasoning. Please explain your premises. What are you using as the basis for your premises.

Premises:

1) God created a consistent design a natural, explainable, understandable one

2) In the middle would he changed that design

3) He cheated on the design for life?

Please tell us what you were thinking of when you posted these premises, and please be specific with examples, and then we can respond more directly to your intent.

Thanks.

Let me try again. Assuming there is a god that made everything. It would appear that he made set rules in the universe that even he doesn't like to break. All of these rules appear to make it so that god isn't required to do the day to day maintenance of making pockets of complexity. God doesn't have to make it rain he set the rules up so that it would rain. So we know why it rains. God could just pop rain where ever he wanted it but he doesn't he used a natural explainable and understandable way to make it rain. A set of rules that allow systems to get more complex has been found for every single system that we look at. Why would a all powerful god need to divert from this pattern. Why would he have to pop life into existence if he could change the rules so that we would develop on our own or at least appear to.

Let me try again. Assuming there is a god that made everything. It would appear that he made set rules in the universe that even he doesn't like to break. All of these rules appear to make it so that god isn't required to do the day to day maintenance of making pockets of complexity. God doesn't have to make it rain he set the rules up so that it would rain. So we know why it rains. God could just pop rain where ever he wanted it but he doesn't he used a natural explainable and understandable way to make it rain. A set of rules that allow systems to get more complex has been found for every single system that we look at. Why would a all powerful god need to divert from this pattern. Why would he have to pop life into existence if he could change the rules so that we would develop on our own or at least appear to.

Really good point. Of course, you know that the answer you'll get will be along the following lines: I don't know God's ways. It's not for me to say what God decided to do things the way he did.

The odd thing about this mode of response, though, is that it is often invoked by the same people who claim to know who is going to heaven, how the "end times" will play out, etc. Again, it looks like cherry-picking to me.

But it's good of you try reason.

inthebox,
I find no difficulty in believing in creation and some form of evolution.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Neither do I. Just micro evolution as demonstrated by antimicrobial resistance in bacteria.

When we get a chance to ask God what is the real story, I have my own theory:
God is the force behind "macro evolution" - all those "beneficial" mutations were the result of His hand and all the mutations that are factually demonstrated to cause human disease are the results of the fall.

I can't recall which Phillip Yancey book it was from, but he posits that the miracles that Jesus performed were a glimpse into the perfection that was meant to be before the fall.

Again just my theory.







G&P

Muchaelb,
I believe God's design is still going on in the universe.
Even suns and galaxies are dying and being born differently.
Evolution is still going on and in some cases faster than was once believed.
Why an all powerful God would do it that way I do not know, but I do think it is marvelous.
I and others believe that God in His infinite wisdom and understanding did it that way.
We do nit have wisdom and understanding like God's, not even close.
Compare a the wisdom of a nit to an average human/
That;s an estimation of comparing ours to God's,
Peace and kindness,
Fred

asking,
Do you think that you will ever get a direct, satisfactory, answer to your question to Tj3 on what he believes about the fossil record and what it means?
I don't, but I would like to be surprised.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

When we get a chance to ask God what is the real story, I have my own theory:
God is the force behind "macro evolution" - all those "beneficial" mutations were the result of His hand and all the mutations that are factually demonstrated to cause human disease are the results of the fall.

That's an interesting idea. I like it because it allows for evolution to remain pretty much intact as its understood by biologists. The only difference is that instead of having random mutations whose goodness is completely contingent on the genetic and external environment in which they arise, you have mutations that are sort of preordained to be either "beneficial"/good or bad. Since (my random) mutations will either be selected for (your "good") or against (your "bad"), the only difference is that God knows ahead of time which way selection will go.

asking,
Do you think that you will ever get a direct, satisfactory, answer to your question to Tj3 on what he believes about the fossil record and what it means?
I don't, but I would like to be surprised.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
I do not know if Tom will answer. But I appreciate your inviting me to talk here and also your support. It has been an interesting discussion!
Peace,
asking

I don't understand why you are explaining how fossils form. Most of us already know about that. What we don't know, is what you think they are. You already know what scientists think fossils are. You obviously don't agree that the fossil record is a history of life on Earth. So what's the alternative?

You said:

"I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes"

How they form is part of that. Once again, perhaps you should be more specific about your question. And BTW, please don't tell me what it is that I do or don't think. You are not very good at it.

I will not keep trying to guess exactly what it is that you are trying to get at. I have answered your question twice now (a question that you have refused to answer yourself), and each time you just tell me that is not the answer you are looking for.

How about you answer it, like I suggested before, and that will kick off the discussion into the area that you wish to discuss. I am not a mind reader and I do not plan to keep trying to guess what you want. If you won't answer the question that you want answered yourself and plan to carry on like this, I can only assume that you are playing games to waste my time. I answered in good faith, in an honest effort to address what I thought that you were asking - it is your turn to answer the question now.

Why would a all powerful god need to divert from this pattern. Why would he have to pop life into existence if he could change the rules so that we would develop on our own or at least appear to.

Again, please validate your premises. First, I do not entirely agree with your first premise. God is outside of space and time, and does, on occasion, do miracles, which according to your description, would be outside the rules.

And you keep claiming that God somehow divert from the rules of nature, so for a second time, what are you thinking of here? Please give specific examples. I am not clear on what you have in mind.

Dear Tom,
Fred and I are asking you why you think God buried layer upon layer of fossilized organisms in the Earth's crust. When did He put them there? Why? You have told us a lot about God's intentions and statements in other contexts.

I am curious to know what you think about this problem.
Peace,
asking

Dear Tom,
Fred and I are asking you why you think God buried layer upon layer of fossilized organisms in the Earth's crust. When did He put them there? Why? You have told us a lot about God's intentions and statements in other contexts.

I am curious to know what you think about this problem.
Peace,
asking

Again, it is not clear what you are asking. Why does God cause leaves to die and fall off trees in the fall and grow again in the spring. Why does God make our skin the colour that it is. Why does a platypus have a duck bill.

I don't know God's intentions for any of us to die, but animals die, some rot, some are fossilized, some are eaten. It is the way things happen in nature.

Now I have answered three times.

Are you still refusing to answer your own questions?

It looks to me like we have two alternatives on offer here for an understanding of the fossil record:

1. The view of modern evolutionary biology (represented in the present discussion by asking) which has provided a systematic explanation of the fossil record.
2. A view which doesn't appear to have anything to say about the fossil record other than that there are in fact fossils. This view tells us nothing about them, nor about their significance as data (cf. view 1).

To each his/her own, of course, but I prefer the first view to the second, non-view, view.

It looks to me like we have two alternatives on offer here for an understanding of the fossil record:

1. The view of modern evolutionary biology (represented in the present discussion by asking) which has provided a systematic explanation of the fossil record.

I am still waiting to hear asking's details view of the fossil record. How about it asking? You ask a lot of question, but despite my request, you seems to hold off from given us your view of the fossil record.


2. A view which doesn't appear to have anything to say about the fossil record other than that there are in fact fossils. This view tells us nothing about them, nor about their significance as data (cf. view 1).

This must be your viewpoint. I have yet to see anyone else put forward this view, nor have I heard you tells your detailed view regarding the fossil record.

Then we have the Biblical view recorded in Genesis regarding creation. This is the view that I hold to.

I am still waiting to hear asking's details view of the fossil record. How about it asking? You ask a lot of question, but despite my request, you seems to hold off from given us your view of the fossil record.

I took asking to hold the view of modern evolutionary biology regarding the fossil record. Since this view is in wide circulation I can see no reason for her to reproduce it here.


This must be your viewpoint. I have yet to see anyone else put forward this view, nor have I heard you tells your details view regarding the fossil record.



Well, it's not a view, it's a non-view view, which is what I understood from your recent replies. You clai,ed not to know why fossils are thee, and you don't appear to have any account to offer of their theoretical significance. So it looks like what you have offered is a rejection of macro-evolution coupled with no account whatsoever of the fossil record. Perhaps you think it is not a "record" of anything, I don't know.



Then we have the Biblical view recorded in Genesis regarding creation. I hold to God's word regarding creation.

Rhetoric isn't a substitute for reasoned explanation.

I took asking to hold the view of modern evolutionary biology regarding the fossil record. Since this view is in wide circulation I can see no reason for her to reproduce it here.

There are variants to this view, and as I indicated, the fossil record, as any scientist who has studied it will tell you, is a very complex record. Are fossil fuels created by the same process as fossilized plants? What about fossilized trees which stand upright through dozens or hundreds of layers?

If you want to understand something, especially as wide and as complex as the fossil record, oversimplification will not help, and is counterproductive.


Well, it's not a view, it's a non-view view, which is what I understood from your recent replies.

Kindly don't get back into mis-representing me. I provided three posts with my views, more than anyone else on here. If you want a serious discussion, then please deal with what I said, and don't mis-represent me.


You clai,ed not to know why fossils are thee,

Not true. I was asked "...why you think God buried layer upon layer of fossilized organisms in the Earth's crust". That is a different question. How fossils come to be is one question. Why God chose to to cre4ate a process of mineralization is a completely different question. So please be honest with what I said.


Rhetoric isn't a substitute for reasoned explanation.

Neither is mis-representing others.

I am still waiting to hear your answers to the questions that I answered.

There are variants to this view, and as I indicated, the fossil record, as any scientist who has studied it will tell you, is a very complex record. Are fossil fuels created by the same process as fossilized plants? What about fossilized trees which stand upright through dozens or hundreds of layers?

If you want to understand something, especially as wide and as complex as the fossil record, oversimplification will not help, and is counterproductive.

And evolutionary biology speaks to this. I've been quite candid throughout this thread about the fact that I accept the findings of evolutionary biology.


Kindly don't get back into mis-representing me. I provided three posts with my views, more than anyone else on here. If you want a serious discussion, then please deal with what I said, and don't mis-represent me.

I have not misrepresented your views in past and I don't plan to start now. I've given my own assessment of the views on offer. Others are free to agree or disagree with that assessment as they see fit.


I am still waiting to hear your answers to the questions that I answered.

Again, I accept the findings of modern science, here as with regard to heliocentrism. I've been quite clear about that all along. I have no new empirical findings of my own to add to the work done by modern science. And since that work is public and well-known, I can see no reason for anyone to reproduce it here. You, however, disagree with the findings of modern science. Your view is not public nor is it well-known, so it is quite reasonable for participants in this thread to ask you to present your view. The question that is, I think, of greatest interest to many here is what you take the fossil record to show. You say you have answered that question to your own satisfaction. That is your right. Clearly, however, you haven't answered it to ours. How you proceed on the strength of that is entirely your own affair.

Asking.
Personally I do not see a problem with asking as you did this way, ""I am interested in an alternate hypothesis that accounts for the existence of the fossil record in the form it takes"
It seem to me that you are asking for Tom's hypothesis other than the largely accepted scientific hypothesis or theory concerning the fossil record as it exists today.
Why he has trouble understanding that I can't imagine for he does seem to be an intelligent man.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

And evolutionary biology speaks to this. I've been quite candid throughout this thread about the fact that I accept the findings of evolutionary biology.

There are variant views within evolutionary biology, and keep in mind that I am not speaking against the findings of biology. I find it interesting though, that you accept only the findings of one group of biologists. I am willing to look at all scientific findings.


I have not misrepresented your views in past and I don't plan to start now.

Many cases have been pointed out to you. Perhaps it would be best if you simply stop trying to announce what my positions are. You do an absolutely terrible job at it, and I cannot remember a single time where you accurate reflected anything that I said. If you want to discuss what I said, please just quote me in context rather than trying to put your spin on it.


I have no new empirical findings of my own to add to the work done by modern science.


So you would not have any problems with the findings of leading biologists in the field such as Michael Behe.The question that is, I think, of greatest interest to many here is what you take the fossil record to show. You say you have answered that question to your own satisfaction. That is your right. Clearly, however, you haven't answered it to ours. How you proceed on the strength of that is entirely your own affair.

Two points. One, you refuse to answer the same questions yourself, so what right do you have to harass me after I answered all three questions asked of me, even requesting that asking be specific about what he was aiming at so that my answer could be more specific. But asking won't even answer his own questions, nor clarify what he is getting at.

So, what it comes down to, if you and asking want to play games in asking vague questions and then criticizing and falsely accusing when you don't get the specific answer you want, then be aware, as I told you before, I don't play those games.

If you want to share freely our views on a particular issue, with you and asking being willing to share, then this could be a very interesting discussion. But if you are unwilling to do so, then you may as drop this part of the topic because this is just heading down the same path as the other threads.

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-member-discussions/true-humans-descendants-apes-156737-14.html#post947947

Post #138.
Your turn.

(Apologies for all the typos in it.)

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-member-discussions/true-humans-descendants-apes-156737-14.html#post947947

Post #138.
Your turn.

(Apologies for all the typos in it.)

That says nothing about the fossil record or what it says. It is merely a summary of some theories about apes and man and since there is already a discussion in another thread, if I wish to get into that sub-topic, I'll go over to that thread.

But I did raise a point about the fossil record some time back and I never heard anything from you in response. Let's bring this back again and let's see if we can get an actually discussion going. Since you feel free to ask questions, I am sure that you will have no problem answering some. I said:

-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

You are looking at #140. Go up two posts.
In any case, it's a brief summary of the last 3 billion years of life, as understood (roughly) by biologists and paleontologists (a species of biologist). As Akoue points out, this is biological doctrine at this point, so no need to go on and on about it. Everybody's heard it all before.

What's interesting is what You think the fossil record represents.

I gather that you agree that fossils are the remains of real organisms. What do you think of trilobites? There were so very many at one point and now there are none, except for the fossils. Was God inordinately fond of them at one point and then they fell from grace? What happened?

Asking,
Why to I feel that won't help much?
Why do I feel that you request will still be dodged?
I would like to know the answers to those question which I fear only I can answer adequately.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
You said to Tj3, "You say you have answered that question to your own satisfaction. That is your right. Clearly, however, you haven't answered it to ours. How you proceed on the strength of that is entirely your own affair."
I agree.
Fred

I would like to know the answers to those question which I fear only I can answer adequately.

Please do.

You are looking at #140. Go up two posts.
In any case, it's a brief summary of the last 3 billion years of life, as understood (roughly) by biologists and paleontologists (a species of biologist). As Akoue points out, this is biological doctrine at this point, so no need to go on and on about it. Everybody's heard it all before.

Doctrine, eh? So are you saying that all biologists must agree with this, or do you acknowledge the fact that there are variants in views on this topic amongst biologists?


I gather that you agree that fossils are the remains of real organisms.

Fossilized remains. Too bad you did not asked that before starting on to 20 questions. If that was what you were trying to get at, we could have gotten to the point much faster. That is why I was asking you to get to the point and be specific.


What do you think of trilobites?

I don't really stay awake at night thinking about them. Why, again, what is your point? What do YOU think about them?


There were so very many at one point and now there are none, except for the fossils. Was God inordinately fond of them at one point and then they fell from grace? What happened?

Have you ever heard of something called extinction?

BTW, maybe you will answer my previous question one of these times. You seem to like asking them, but you rarely answer questions. Let's try again (third time posted):

But I did raise a point about the fossil record some time back and I never heard anything from you in response. Let's bring this back again and let's see if we can get an actually discussion going. Since you feel free to ask questions, I am sure that you will have no problem answering some. I said:

-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

TJ3,
PLEASE,
Do you agree or disagree with what modern popular science says about the fossil record?
Once again what does the fossil record mean or say to you?

TJ3,
PLEASE,
Do you agree or disagree with what modern popular science says about the fossil record?
Once again what does the fossil record mean or say to you?

There are variant views amongst modern science, and as a man of science, I accept modern science and find it in concert with the Bible. It is for that reason that I reject the theory of macro-evolution, as do thousands of other scientists.

If you want to see a good book on evolution, try this one written by a leading scientist in the field:

Amazon.com: The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism: Michael J. Behe: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296222/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231997750&sr=8-1)

It is an excellent book. I don't agree with everything that he says, but it is an eye opener based upon the latest scientific findings.

Doctrine, eh? So are you saying that all biologist must agree with this, or do you acknowledge the fact that there are variants in views on this topic amongst biologists?

Yeah, I thought you'd like that word! I don't acknowledge any substantive variants on the big picture. You can find people arguing about details but not about (1) common descent with modification or (2) the overall structure of our family tree and the order in which organisms have evolved. All biologists DO agree.


I don't really stay awake at night thinking about [trilobites].

Probably give you nightmares. :)


Have you ever heard of something called extinction?

Well, why does God extinguish His own Creations?
Were they on Noah's Ark?


The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.

Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10. But figuring out the order in which they were originally formed is not that hard, I learned in geology 10. It's mainly a mapping problem. And if you get really confused, there's always radiometric dating.

I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.

Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there? Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out? Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?

EDIT: I just googled Joggins. Very cool!

Tj3
Then you agree with the modern popular view that the fossil record covers millions of years. I'm surprised, for I thot not.
That is why we keep asking what the fossil record says to you.
Thanks for your answer.
No I'm no interested in what that book says.
Thanks anyway.
Fred

Yeah, I thought you'd like that word! I don't acknowledge any substantive variants on the big picture.

I have done a great deal of reading and have found many variants. Many scientists are open to being flexible in adapting their views to the latest discoveries.



All biologists DO agree.

Maybe all you talk to.


Well, why does God extinguish His own Creations?

Does he/ Death started with sin.

Rom 5:12-13
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
NKJV

So it is not God who caused the death or extinction of animals, but sin which entered the world when Satan rebelled against God, and when man followed Satan in that rebellion.



Where they on Noah's Ark?

No all animals were on Noah's ark. Animals which could live in water would be in the water.


Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10.

Good. Because your description was that of a nice neat set of layers exhibiting what you wanted to see in order. It isn't at all like that.


I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is).

Wow! That surprises me. I never heard of a person who has an interest in fossils who never heard of Joggins before. It is considered one of the top sites in the world for fossils, which is why it was designated a world heritage site.

Do a bit of research. The pictures of the trees are common.


But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.

Inside rock. Hmmm.


Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there?

Already answered. If you have more specific questions, then please quote what I said and indicate what additional detail you would like regarding my comments.


Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out?

Life is complex. Ever studied a "simple" single cell? It is more complex that any chemical refinery on the face of the earth. Why did God create life and the universe with such universal majesty and complexity? Perhaps so that may would have no excuse in recognizing that there is in fact an intelligence behind the design of all creation. I am not going to claim to know the mind of God, though.


Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?

See, that is what I mean by mis-representing me. I just finished saying the opposite and then you post this mis-reprsenting me. Is mis-representation necessary to prove your points?

You claim that ALL biologists agree. Perhaps that is because you are unaware of the wider diversity of views amongst biologists, and maybe that is why you don't think that other views are acceptable. But in saying so, you are in fact doing what you accuse me of - claiming that all biologists who fail to agree with you are automatically wrong.

Grab yourself a copy of the "Edge of Evolution". Don't worry, it won't stick probes into your brain and force you to do its bidding. I read all sorts of science books from all sorts of varying perspectives which is one reason I know such varying perspectives exist). I highly recommend that you considering broadening your scope and pick up a book or two which may present a view which is divergent to your own.

Tj3
Then you agree with the modern popular view that the fossil record covers millions of years.

No, that is one view. Other modern scientific views disagree and I must go where the evidence leads.


No I'm no interested in what that book says.

I thought that you said that were interested what leading edge scientific research by leading scientists has to say.

Behe is not a "leading scientist". In fact, he's something of a joke in the broader scientific community.

Tom, what other LEADING scientists favor your view. It would be preferable if you could point to some who aren't affiliated with the Discovery Institute (which, as you must know given your vast scientific knowledge) is a pariah in the scientific community.

No, that is one view. Other modern scientific views disagree and I must go where the evidence leads.

According to your understanding of "where the evidence leads", what is the approximate age of the earth?

Behe is not a "leading scientist". In fact, he's something of a joke in the broader scientific community.

Perhaps in your circles. But I am not sure that may other scientists would be welcomed in your circles either.


It would be preferable if you could point to some who aren't affiliated with the Discovery Institute (which, as you must know given your vast scientific knowledge) is a pariah in the scientific community.

I am sure that ANY scientist that I gave you the name of, or any organization of scientist would be rejected by you. Asking told me that ALL biologists agree. That may true if you take the approach of rejecting all who disagree with you. I don't. I accept and listen to scientists of all opinions because I am interested in truth.

asking
Ye, that would be VERY interesting.
Fred

Perhaps in your circles. But I am not sure that may other scientists would be welcomed in your circles either.



I am sure that ANY scientist that I gave you the name of, or any organization of scientist would be rejected by you. Asking told me that ALL biologists agree. That may true if you take the approach of rejecting all who disagree with you. I don't. I accept and listen to scientists of all opinions because I am interested in truth.


Yes, yes, that's fine. Now, can you name any scientists not affiliated with the Discovery Institute who take the view you describe?

Ps: For anyone out there who hasn't heard of the Discovery Institute: Academic scientists have obliterated the work it's produced and it is regarded as a complete joke. These aren't my circles: It's been well-publicized.

Humor me

1. I have sat here and read this entire thread from beginning to end in one, continuous sitting. I am absolutely absorbed in the discussion (except for the occasional pissin' matches) and I almost hate that I have reached the most current entry, because that concludes my night's reading on the topic. It's just as well though, I'm really needing a smoke break!

2. From the time that I first read the title of this thread, until my decision to make this post, I kept waiting for the topic of Divine Intervention to pop up, but it never did. Is that not a viable element to the relations between Biblical account of creation and evolution?

3. Does anyone have know of reference in the bible that speaks of what Adam and Eve actually look like? Physical characteristics, anything? I searched and could not find one. For this thread's title's sake, I wan't to propose a spin on things. Preposterous as it may seem, it's a spin, humor me.

a. Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
b. Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I offer this only because of the idea that man was not descendant from our modern apes, but that our modern apes and humans share common ancestry. And for lack of better example of my thought process, I am using a. and b. as a spin on things. God created man in his image, man and woman, and they began to multiply from the joining of the two that were created. Well, here comes the "sons of god", and correct me if I'm wrong, but they are not "man". Ok, now we have offspring from this union.

Would this not be un-arguably "Divine Intervention" in it's most basic form?

Humor me

1. I have sat here and read this entire thread from beginning to end in one, continuous sitting. I am absolutely absorbed in the discussion (except for the occasional pissin' matches) and I almost hate that I have reached the most current entry, because that concludes my night's reading on the topic. It's just as well though, I'm really needing a smoke break!

2. From the time that I first read the title of this thread, until my decision to make this post, I kept waiting for the topic of Divine Intervention to pop up, but it never did. Is that not a viable element to the relations between Biblical account of creation and evolution?

3. Does anyone have know of reference in the bible that speaks of what Adam and Eve actually look like? Physical characteristics, anything? I searched and could not find one. For this thread's title's sake, I wan't to propose a spin on things. Preposterous as it may seem, it's a spin, humor me.

a. Genesis 1:26, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness"
b. Genesis 6:4, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them"

I offer this only because of the idea that man was not decendent from our modern apes, but that our modern apes and humans share common ancestry. And for lack of better example of my thought process, I am using a. and b. as a spin on things. God created man in his image, man and woman, and they began to multiply from the joining of the two that were created. Well, here comes the "sons of god", and correct me if I'm wrong, but they are not "man". Ok, now we have offspring from this union.

Would this not be un-arguably "Divine Intervention" in it's most basic form?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'd like to offer my thoughts in response, but it would help if you could help me understand one thing a little better (otherwise, I think I may end up veering off-course from what you have in mind): Are you thinking that those who are mentioned in a. and b. are ancestors from whom modern humans have evolved? I think your answer will be yes, but I just want to be sure I'm understanding.

Maybe all [biologists] you talk to.

Read mostly or read about. Too many to talk to them all.

I'm not aware of anyone with any real credentials besides Behe and Wells, and even Wells has said he got his PhD in genetics specifically so he could have the credentials to attack evolution. Too bad he didn't get a PhD in zoology or botany. Behe is kind of an embarrassment to his institution, but he's a credit to academic freedom!

I read a review of his book (in the New York Review of Books) and it seemed to say he'd backed down a lot compared to his first book. I tried to read his first book. He's a pretty good stylist, but he's just wrong and misleading about so many things, I couldn't finish it.


Does he/ Death started with sin.

Rom 5:12-13
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned--
NKJV

So it is not God who caused the death or extinction of animals, but sin which entered the world when Satan rebelled against God, and when man followed Satan in that rebellion.

So you are saying the trilobites sinned?
They lived long before any humans every lived on Earth, so I don't see how you can blame human sin for the demise of the trilobites, poor things.


No all animals were on Noah's ark. Animals which could live in water would be in the water.

So, what about T. rex et al?


... your description was that of a nice neat set of layers exhibiting what you wanted to see in order. It isn't at all like that.

Viewed through time, it IS like that.

It's like opening up a jigsaw puzzle. It's a mess, but once you get it sorted out, the pattern is clear. The pieces fit together AND the picture reinforces that you've got it right. The fossil record is the same. Once you sort out where all the layers are supposed to be, the overall pattern is clear. And in many parts of the world, like the Grand Canyon, you have a continuous record over millions of years with no disentangling necessary. I personally don't think you can get any closer to a miracle of creation than that. But that's just me.


You claim that ALL biologists agree.

They do. But let's stay focused on trying to find out what you think fossils represent.

Why do you think that in ancient times there were only bacteria, and then later, there were eukaryotic cells (the ones with their genes in a nucleus), and later multicellular organisms? Why do you think these organisms appear in that order?

Thanks for the thoughtful post. I'd like to offer my thoughts in response, but it would help if you could help me understand one thing a little better (otherwise, I think I may end up veering off-course from what you have in mind): Are you thinking that those who are mentioned in a. and b. are ancestors from whom modern humans have evolved? I think your answer will be yes, but I just want to be sure I'm understanding.

Well, it's a question I have never posed or even put much thought into until this context came up, but have offered merely as an example of how the Bible speaks of an intermingling of what I am guessing to be 'divine' creatures (sons of god, specifically identified as NOT being 'man', or the created 'man') and the created 'man', and there being an offspring from this union. Would said offspring be man, or divine? Either way, doesn't this throw a monkey wrench in what 'man' was originally created to be?

I'm confused. What were the giants in the earth?

Also, New York originally asked where the daughters came from, since Adam and Eve had sons. Or at least that's what I understood. Is there still a daughter problem?

I'm confused. What were the giants in the earth?

I could take this in depth, but it would be very distracting to this thread, and not beneficial to the topic. But in my understanding they were the "Nefilim" or by some translation "the giants that fell from the sky"

Also, New York originally asked where the daughters came from, since Adam and Eve had sons. Or at least that's what I understood. Is there still a daughter problem?

Well, apparently there is more than one "man" on the earth at this time according to the sumerians.

(not trying to railroad this thread, I hope it isn't viewed as such)

Well, it's a question I have never posed or even put much thought into until this context came up, but have offered merely as an example of how the Bible speaks of an intermingling of what I am guessing to be 'divine' creatures (sons of god, specifically identified as NOT being 'man', or the created 'man') and the created 'man', and there being an offspring from this union. Would said offspring be man, or divine? Either way, doesn't this throw a monkey wrench in what 'man' was originally created to be?

If I'm understanding your idea--and I may not be, so please set me straigth if I go off the rails--your thought is not that Adam and Eve are descended from some earlier species, but that, after Adam and Eve, there was via an act of God some interbreeding between humans and Nephilim which altered human evolution. This is interesting in its own right, but it may be orthogonal to the main question, inasmuch, if I'm understanding correctly, you are allowing for evolution--you're just suggesting that evolution may have been a one-time event that came along after Adam and Eve.

Am I totally messing up your point?

If I'm understanding your idea--and I may not be, so please set me straigth if I go off the rails--your thought is not that Adam and Eve are descended from some earlier species, but that, after Adam and Eve, there was via an act of God some interbreeding between humans and Nephilim which altered human evolution. This is interesting in its own right, but it may be orthogonal to the main question, inasmuch, if I'm understanding correctly, you are allowing for evolution--you're just suggesting that evolution may have been a one-time event that came along after Adam and Eve.

Am I totally messing up your point?

First off let me apologize, as I am NOT very good at getting to the point and tend to be long winded.

But basically yes, for the purpose of this conversation, Adam and Eve are not decedended from anything, as they are created as per the biblical story by God.

Asking, where the daughter's of man come into play, all I can fall back on is Gen 6:1 "Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them"

So I have to guess that daughters were born to Adam and Eve, since they had only sons at that point

when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men


Here is one last thought.

I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.

asking,
The bible does not say that Adam and Eve did not have any daughters or more children after.their two sons.
They could have had a dozen or more kids,

First off let me apologize, as I am NOT very good at getting to the point and tend to be long winded.

Not at all. You don't have anything to apologize for.

I, however, do. I'm really beat and need to give your idea some thought. So it's to bed with me and I'll offer my two-cents (for what it's worth) tomorrow. So come back and talk with us, okay?

Here is one last thought.

I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.

There did seem to be a specific division between the "sons of god" and the "daughters of man" in that there is no mention of the "sons of man" there.
Gen 6:1-8
Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
3 And the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=50#fen-NKJV-141a)] with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.
5 Then the LORD[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=6&version=50#fen-NKJV-143b)] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU&NR=1)

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU&NR=1)
I agree, They should shut down medical research and increase prayer circles THEN some people will get healed!

Yes, yes, that's fine. Now, can you name any scientists not affiliated with the Discovery Institute who take the view you describe?

Ps: For anyone out there who hasn't heard of the Discovery Institute: Academic scientists have obliterated the work it's produced and it is regarded as a complete joke. These aren't my circles: It's been well-publicized.

Yes, but why? Already you have rejected all scientists that you know of who disagree with you. Asking says all biologists agree, which appears to mean that he rejects biologists who disagree as scientists. This is sounding very much like a religion where those who dare to consider ideas contrary to what the unproven theory held by many are consider essentially heretics to the religion of evolution.

Read mostly or read about. Too many to talk to them all.

I'm not aware of anyone with any real credentials besides Behe and Wells, and even Wells has said he got his PhD in genetics specifically so he could have the credentials to attack evolution. Too bad he didn't get a PhD in zoology or botany. Behe is kind of an embarrassment to his institution, but he's a credit to academic freedom!

So you do know of scientists who do not agree. Therefore we know that not all agree with your position. And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.

I find it a bit disconcerting for scientific freedom of thought when those who consider alternate views based upon the evidence are considered to be heretics to the doctrine of the religion of evolution.



So you are saying the trilobites sinned?

No, I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.


They lived long before any humans every lived on Earth, so I don't see how you can blame human sin for the demise of the trilobites, poor things.

This timeline is according to your opinion.



So, what about T. rex et al?

They are dinosaurs. So?



Viewed through time, it IS like that.

Where did you buy your time machine? If you don't have one, then what you are telling me is that despite the fact that the layers are not like that, you interprt them in a manner which fits your beliefs.


They do.

But you just admitted above that they don't all agree. So are you denying that biologists who disagree are actually biologists?


Why do you think that in ancient times there were only bacteria, and then later, there were eukaryotic cells (the ones with their genes in a nucleus), and later multicellular organisms? Why do you think these organisms appear in that order?

Circular reasoning. This is your interpretation. Then you make it a "fact" and demand that others explain events around an unproven timeline.

Finally the last word on this subject
YouTube - Dogbert and the theory of evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19PfUIovUaU&NR=1)

I love it!

Often truth can be presented in a humorous manner.

If Darwin considers himself an evolved monkey, then May be some monkeys were smart enough not to evolve into Darwin like thinkers.

So you do know of scientists who do not agree.

I reject TWO people who could possibly be considered biologists. I know of no other creation "scientists" who actually have any training in biology. I am not going to acknowledge the opinions of scientists and engineers outside of biology proper (e.g. chemists are not biologists). If you want to put up some more people with credentials as biologists, I'll consider them. But I can't think of any off the top of my head. The point is that all biologists (except for Behe and Wells, if they can even be considered biologists) do not consider the theory of evolution in any way controversial. Two people out of tens or hundreds of thousands is basically fruitcake country. If there are one or two more out there somewhere, that doesn't alter my point.


And though YOU may consider Behe to be a problem, he is well respected by others.

Name one bona fide biologist in the National Academy of Sciences who respects Behe's arguments about evolution. (Saying nice things about him personally does not count.)

•Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.


... I said that nature was affected by man bringing sin into the world.

This timeline is according to your opinion.

And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?

•You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.


They are dinosaurs. So?

Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

Ark? no ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

I admire both your tenacity and your forbearance.

"Perseverance furthers"--The I Ching

Asking,

I still have seen nothing from you other than some vague comment to the extent that athere are ways in which it could happen, regarding the question that I asked you. If you wish to play twenty questions, surely you can provide an answer to this one:

-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

I reject TWO people who could possibly be considered biologists. I know of no other creation "scientists" who actually have any training in biology. I am not going to acknowledge the opinions of scientists and engineers outside of biology proper (e.g. chemists are not biologists). If you want to put up some more people with credentials as biologists, I'll consider them. But I can't think of any off the top of my head. The point is that all biologists (except for Behe and Wells, if they can even be considered biologists) do not consider the theory of evolution in any way controversial. Two people out of tens or hundreds of thousands is basically fruitcake country. If there are one or two more out there somewhere, that doesn't alter my point.

Your cohort on here, Akoue tossed out an entire scientific institution without so much as a gander at the credentials. I find it interesting how this whole thread has changed ever since the so-called "proof" for macro-evolution was shown to be not what it was claimed to be. Instead of discussion the topic, it is now a witch-hunt - whoever does not agree with evolution suddenly is labelled as incompetent or a "fruitcake".

Kind of remainds me of what was done to Galileo and others. This is yet more evidence that evolution is a religion and those who do not hold to the line given by the "rpiests" of evolution are designated heretics.


Tj, You wrote that trilobites went extinct after Adam and Eve because they sinned.

Then we see the mis-representations like this, which I never said, but was entirely fabricated. If we cannot keep it honest, then why discuss? If you disagree and think that I did say it, bring forward the quote where I said, as you claim, that trilobytes went extinct because they sinned. Apologies will be accepted anytime.

Again, if you must fabricate stories to defend what you believe, then is it really worth believing?


And your timeline says what? When did the trilobites go extinct, or at least approximately how long after the fall? And when would that be, in round numbers, in years?

I have no way of telling exactly how many years, and why would that matter in any case? It does not in any way validated a transition from one species to another.


You said that trilobites were not on the Ark because they were aquatic. So I asked if Tyrannasaurus rex were on the ark.

Please, asking, please read more carefully. Once again you have mis-represented what I said. I made a general comment.


Ark? No ark? Inquiring minds want to know what you think about this.

All animals which were required to be on the ark to survive would had to have been on the ark.

But again, what does this have to do with your failed attempt to prove species transition?

Well...
I have been following your discussion lightly.

I would call myself Christian, because I believe in God, and I believe in the message of Christ.

However, I cannot see any reason, to make such a cruel comparison of the Bible against the Evolutionary theory. Even if I believe in a God, why must the Bible, that is written by humans (whose knowledge is ever expanding and exchangable) be an objective source of information? If God created the humans, he apparently created them in such a way, that they do not need the truth to be served in script (Old Testament, New Testament, Islam,etc), but instead more likely would create the human in such a way, that She can find the truth on her own...

... which leads to science. Science is a way, of trying to measure, understand the Universe with all its phenomenons in an objective way, in a way that is independent of religious or any ideological background. The Bible, and other religious books, are created to form a subjective mind path. There is no possibility at all, to compare a evolutionary theory to the Bible, since one science is the search of Truth, and the Bible is the claiming of Truth. Perhaps, are you right, that evolutionary theory is incomplete or wrong or just a theory, but it still has the aim of understanding things at a deeper and more concrete level than what faith can give. Simply, science and religion are two things that are not to be mixed, and the Intelligent Design-phenomenon, is the worst way of how to manipulate objective science into subjective religion.

At the same time... if I were God, would I really work so hard to create all species one by one, or would I simply just say "Dear Universe, evolve in structure and in life?" A good programmer, would see that the latter mechanism would save much time, compared to the former, so there is no way, in which evolutionary theory has to contradict the existence of a God.

Erratum:

Sorry, I of course meant Islam's Koran, when I counted written works.

Here is one last thought.

I'm thinking a lot is riding on this one phrase, which may simply be a backhanded way of minimizing women's connection to God. Are women anywhere in the bible described as the daughters of God rather than the daughters of men? ARE there any daughters of God? (I searched an online Bible and didn't find any.) I'm thinking these sons of God are also sons of men, one and the same, but elevated for stylistic effect. Just a thought.

"When God created the man, he watched his creation, and said: 'I can do better than this' and created the woman."

Even if I believe in a God, why must the Bible, that is written by humans (whose knowledge is ever expanding and exchangable) be an objective source of information?

2 Tim 3:16 - God inspired the whole Bible and gave it to us for our edification.


At the same time... if I were God, would I really work so hard to create all species one by one, or would I simply just say "Dear Universe, evolve in structure and in life?" A good programmer, would see that the latter mechanism would save much time, compared to the former, so there is no way, in which evolutionary theory has to contradict the existence of a God.

Unlike you or I, God is omniscient and omnipotent and using His creative ability would therefore not drain His creativity the way that it might you or I. I did find it interesting, though, that though you thought it might be hard for God to do this, you attribute intelligence and creativity to the universe to be capable of doing what God would not want to do.

why must the Bible, that is written by humans (whose knowledge is ever expanding and exchangable) be an objective source of information? If God created the humans, he apparently created them in such a way, that they do not need the truth to be served in script (Old Testament, New Testament, Islam,etc), but instead more likely would create the human in such a way, that She can find the truth on her own...

Very well put. I don't think I could agree more, given that I am neither theologian nor scientist, have no formal education in either, but try to be as objective as possible in my view on both matters.


...which leads to science. Science is a way, of trying to measure, understand the Universe with all its phenomenons in an objective way, in a way that is independent of religious or any ideological background. The Bible, and other religious books, are created to form a subjective mind path.

Perfectly describes why I have such a hard time admitting myself to any conventional, organized brand of faith. I cannot seem to overcome my overwhelming sense of objectivity to accept the subjectivity of available religious disciplines. I seem to ask "why" to the unpopular questions.


Intelligent Design-phenomenon, is the worst way of how to manipulate objective science into subjective religion.

I wish I could defend my thoughts on that issue, but I've yet to even come up with a good question. I keep getting hung up on the issue of primitive man. Is Adam and Eve ancestor to the primitive man, meaning there was de-evolving of some kind after creation? Or is primitive man of separate ancestry to the 'created man'? This also brings me to the question of "the daughters" of man mentioned in the book of genesis. If Adam and Even bore no daughters, who were the daughters that the "son's of god" took as partners? I leads me to fall back on the idea of there being a "Divine Intervention". It's so hard for me to be objective if I only have subjective references, and am forced to be speculative without any better evidence.

Asking,

I still have seen nothing from you other than some vague comment to the extent that athere are ways in which it could happen, regarding the question that I asked you. If you wish to play twenty questions, surely you can provide an answer to this one:

-----------------------------
The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

I'm not sure how many times, nor how many different ways, asking must answer this question. She has explained what the fossil record shows at #138. He has explained the sorting out of the layers. I see no reason why this fact should be obfuscated by others.

Speaking of unanswered questions, I am reposting mine for Tom in more succinct form:

1. You stated that Behe is respected. Which biologists respect his arguments about evolution? (Personal regard does not count.)

2. How did the sin of Adam and Eve lead to the extinction of the trilobites? You said I misquoted you, so please correct the record.

3. In your view, were any members of the species Tyrannasaurus rex on Noah's ark?

I agree with those many scientists who say that trilobites died our mullions of years ago long before adam came along.
Also I have made my case here in why there were know dinosaurs on Noah's arch.
Fred

I agree with those many scientists who say that trilobites died our mullions of years ago long before adam came along.
Also I have made my case here in why there were know dinosaurs on Noah's arch.
Fred

Fred,

You are welcome to believe this. As a former evolutionist, I used to believe as you do.It took many years before I checked into the details and basis for the claim, but when I did, I had no choice but to accept the facts and change my position. I used to accept on faith that evolution was proven, but when I looked into the facts, I learned that things were much different.

I encourage you to take the time and do your own research. Check out both sides of the issue as I did.

Tom

I'm not sure how many times, nor how many different ways, asking must answer this question. She has explained what the fossil record shows at #138. She has explained the sorting out of the layers. I see no reason why this fact should be obfuscated by others.

I asked one question. You are talking about her comments to different subtopics.

Yes, the biblical account of creation is absolutely compatible with evolution. Everything God creates is done through evolution. Evolution itself is a process through which a species changes to become a more advanced species. Read the bible itself, it's all in there. Adam and Eve were not the first humans in existence, look in Genesis. Religion is designed to teach fairy tales. Science proves the existence of God more every day.

Yes, the biblical account of creation is absolutely compatible with evolution. Everything God creates is done through evolution.

When I was an evolutionist. I tried to put together an argument to show exactly what you said. I went to evolutionists books and took their timeline and sequence of creation. Then I went to the Bible and compared them. Tell us what you find.

Wow, Tom, you seem to feel really victimized a lot of the time. Your question to asking concerned disorder in the layers of the fossil record. He answered this when he posted regarding the sorting out of the layers and the appeal to radiometric dating. If I remember it, why don't you?

Now kindly comport yourself in a civil manner.

Or is trying to have a real dialogue on the topic simply a waste of time?
I've found it to be both educational and entertaining, so it certainly hasn't been a waste of my time. If you feel that it's a waste of yours, all you have to do is stop posting.

Wow, Tom, you seem to feel really victimized a lot of the time. Your question to asking concerned disorder in the layers of the fossil record. He answered this when he posted regarding the sorting out of the layers and the appeal to radiometric dating. If I remember it, why don't you?

Read the question again. You appear to have missed it. It did NOT concern disordered layers. I was more specific and identified specifically that I was looking for an answer about the trees in Joggins. Read more carefully.

Now kindly comport yourself in a civil manner.

I've found it to be both educational and entertaining, so it certainly hasn't been a waste of my time. If you feel that it's a waste of yours, all you have to do is stop posting.

I have found many parts of it to be also and I enjoy discussing this topic. But if we are going to get into a round of behaviour like we are seeing now, I am beginning to question whether the thread has indeed come to the appropriate time to die.

Now, please explain to me why I should think that this is anything but deliberate mis-representation?

Because I have a pattern of not doing that.

Deep slow breaths.

nike 1,
Sorry, but I must disagree with you.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

asking,
I must agree with you on that.
I saw no purposeful mis-representation of anything you said regarding Tj3.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Tom,

This is the question you keep asking, that you say asking has not addressed:


The layers are often turned upside down to what you describe, and often animals that should be ancient, according to evolution, are mixed in with animals that should be recent according to evolution. I have seen for myself trees in Joggins, NS (a world heritage site) where trees are fossilized and, single trees can be seen growing up through what would be, accordingly to evolutionists, millions or perhaps even hundreds of millions of years.
-----------------------------

What does this fossil record tell us?

At #286 asking wrote:


Yup. The layers are often turned upside down, tangled up, or on their sides. You name it. I learned that in Geology 10. But figuring out the order in which they were originally formed is not that hard, I learned in geology 10. It's mainly a mapping problem. And if you get really confused, there's always radiometric dating.

I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything.

Your turn. If the fossil record is not a picture book record of macroevolution, what is it? Why is it there? Why would God create such a complex puzzle for us to work out? Tens of thousands of dedicated humans work for as many lifetimes to get the answer and you say they are all wrong? So what's the right answer?

EDIT: I just googled Joggins. Very cool!


And again at #297 he writes:


It's like opening up a jigsaw puzzle. It's a mess, but once you get it sorted out, the pattern is clear. The pieces fit together AND the picture reinforces that you've got it right. The fossil record is the same. Once you sort out where all the layers are supposed to be, the overall pattern is clear. And in many parts of the world, like the Grand Canyon, you have a continuous record over millions of years with no disentangling necessary.

It looks to me like he has addressed your question. Now please stop posturing and respond to the questions that have been put to you.

Because I have a pattern of not doing that.

Deep slow breaths.

I have had to point out may times where you mis-represented what I said. But I am always willing to give anyone a second chance, but as I said, I want to know that there is an interest in a serious respectful discussion and that in the future, you will quote me in context rather than simply make claims of what you (often wrong) think that I said.

I said this in my last message, and I note that you have neither expressed regret for having mis-represented me so many times, nor have you indicated that you are prepared to move forward in a new, more respectful approach to the discussion.

I was, for a while enjoying the discussion and I certainly enjoy the topic, but when there are constant mis-representations and things start going personal, the discussion is no longer carrying that same interest, nor is it providing the value that it did previously. The value comes from value added input on the topic, and that stopped a few pages back.

So, like I said, I do not hold grudges and am more that willing to move forward - I am just asking you to agree to a different approach that is more respectful.

Deal?

Tom,

This is the question you keep asking, that you say asking has not addressed:

I know that you would never accept as vague an answer as this from me:

"I have no way of knowing what you saw at Joggins, NS (or where that is). But it's totally possible for a fossilized tree to be unburied and reburied under different sediments. Sure. It could happen. It doesn't disprove anything."

Of course you did not post what I said in response to this, pointing out that the tree is inside rock.

I trust that in the future if I ever choose to give a vague answer like that I will hear no more about it from you.

Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.

In the normal course of discussion there are misunderstandings. One way to be sure you have understood someone is to restate what they have said in your own words. If you have got it right, they feel heard and both parties can move forward.

If someone has got it wrong, it's an opportunity for the other person to clarify. Please clarify whatever it is you feel I misunderstood.

Of course you did not post what I said in response to this, pointing out that the tree is inside rock.

I fully understood that the tree was buried in layers of rock. It doesn't appear to me to present any difficulties for macroevolution. If it does for you, we are all happy to hear your views.


Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.

Either way is fine, Tom.

In the normal course of discussion there are misunderstandings. One way to be sure you have understood someone is to restate what they have said in your own words. If you have got it right, they feel heard and both parties can move forward.


If someone has got it wrong, it's an opportunity for the other person to clarify. Please clarify whatever it is you feel I misunderstood.

We went through that cycle twice and were starting on the third cycle. Plus, in my previous post, I gave you all the message numbers and the ones where I already gave clarification, and here you are asking me once against for clarification.

How many times must one clarify?

I don't mind a mis-understanding and clarifying, but the person who mis-understood needs to at least read the clarification and respond accordingly to it, and not keep posting the same mis-understanding and asking the other person to repeat their clarification again.

I fully understood that the tree was buried in layers of rock. It doesn't appear to me to present any difficulties for macroevolution.

But apparently you do not wish to explain how it might have happened.



Originally Posted by Tj3 View Post
Now, I am interested in a discussion on the topic, if anyone still wishes to actually get back on the topic. If not, it might be best for the mods to simply shutdown the thread since it otherwise appears to have come to the end of its useful life.
Either way is fine, Tom.

The choice is not mine. I have expressed my willingness, but judging by the way things are going, unless something changes dramatically in the interaction, it appears to me that the thread is past the point where any value can be derived from it. Since I don't see anyone else expressing a desire to continue, it the absence of same, if it were my call, I'd shut it down.

But apparently you do not wish to explain how it might have happened.

Would you please explain why you take this to be relevant to the question concerning macroevolution.

Would you please explain why you take this to be relevant to the question concerning macroevolution.

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period and thus may provide important information about how to interpret what the fossil layers really tell us.

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period.

I'm not sure what sort of clue you have in mind. Not all the layers are millions of years in duration. They vary considerably. Some layers go down quickly. But really it would make more sense to consult the people who have studied this site. I can think of several ways it might have happened, but without any specific information, it doesn't make sense for me to guess at what happened. None of the alternatives that I can think of is problematic.

I am beginning to question whether the thread has indeed come to the appropriate time to die.
Well, only the moderators have the power to kill it. Ordinary users like us just get to decide whether to post, or not to post. If nobody posts, it dies of starvation. Otherwise, it lives.

Your evaluation of what I "wish" is well off the mark.
I did not introduce the example, and can only guess at an explanation for it (which I have), since I know nothing about the particulars of this one tree. If you have something to say about the tree, please do! The way is all open to you.

That is fine - that was the same point I made a few times during the "20 questions". No one is required to answer questions. Perhaps in the future discussing points would be better than the 20 questions approach - I agree.

I may choose to add more input on the tree if I see any desire on here for a real discussion.

That is fine - that was the same point I made a few times during the "20 questions". No one is required to answer questions. Perhaps in the future discussing points would be better than the 20 questions approach - I agree.

I may choose to add more input on the tree if I see any desire on here for a real discussion.

That's fine. But you introduced the Joggins tree as a counterexample to macroevolution. Unless you clearly articulate how and why it is a counterexample, it's of no more than anecdotal interest. Now you mentioned just now that the placement of the tree "may" raise questions about the dating of the fossils found at Joggins. Perhaps, if you'd like to give teeth to your counterexample, you might develop that "may" into a "does". Short of that, the overwhelming body of evidence (asking mentioned the Grand Canyon as a case in point) favors the standard dating of the fossil record.

That's fine. But you introduced the Joggins tree as a counterexample to macroevolution. Unless you clearly articulate how and why it is a counterexample, it's of no more than anecdotal interest. Now you mentioned just now that the placement of the tree "may" raise questions about the dating of the fossils found at Joggins. Perhaps, if you'd like to give teeth to your counterexample, you might develop that "may" into a "does". Short of that, the overwhelming body of evidence (asking mentioned the Grand Canyon as a case in point) favors the standard dating of the fossil record.

I see no overwhelming body of evidence, but the onus is on you to articulate that and provide that overwhleming evidence. I have studied that claim and it dioes not hold up under examination. And just making a claim does not make it so.

BTW, I did say that I might discuss it more if I see any desire on here for a serious respectful discussion. We'll see if any materializes.

I see no overwhelming body of evidence, but the onus is on you to articulate that and provide that overwhleming evidence. I have studied that claim and it dioes not hold up under examination. And just making a claim does not make it so.

BTW, I did say that I might discuss it more if I see any desire on here for a serious respectful discussion. We'll see if any materializes.

If you find the fact that I don't see how Joggins is a counterexample to macroevolution as a lack of seriousness or respect, so be it. But I don't. And it's up to the person who proposes a counterexample to demonstrate that it is in fact a counterexample.

If you find the fact that I don't see how Joggins is a counterexample to macroevolution as a lack of seriousness or respect, so be it. But I don't. And it's up to the person who proposes a counterexample to demonstrate that it is in fact a counterexample.

Just as it is up to you / asking to prove that there is "overwhelming evidence for your position. In a serious and sincere discussion, both sides present their positions, and they discuss respectfully. Just telling me that I have to do it, but your side requires no evidence is not a serious discussion.

I have been asking on several threads for evidence of macroevolution, but it seems that you want me to simply accept your position without the same examination. It does not work that way.

Let's see if there is any interest in a serious discussion.

Solution To Darwin's Dilemma Of 1859 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm)

Notice that they found MICROBE fossils preCambrian, but never have fossils of how distinct animal body plans came about.

Nice try but still no explanation for the Cambrian "biological big bang"

Fossils are a red herring, a diversion, because it does not explain the genetic changes needed to explain how we have common ancetors with apes, dogs, mammals, invertebrates.

Maybe in Darwin's, pre cell bioolgy, days it might be acceptable to assume that similar shapes is proof of common ancestry, but by that same criteria, movie theaters, planes, and homes have the same common ancestor because they all have seats in their interior.


The science of cell, molecular, genetics, biochemistry , makes the proposition that we are products of chance mutations and a couple billion years, unrealistic.


Meteorites Delivered The 'Seeds' Of Earth's Left-hand Life, Experts Argue (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080406114742.htm)

How is it that we only have functional left handed amino acids?
... more story telling and speculation [ are these scientific ? ]

How did our dna "know" to only code for left handed amino acids?

------------------------------------------------

The Bible tells us things we know to be true:

Don't kill
Don't commit adultery
Love each other
etc.





G&P

Just as it is up to you / asking to prove that there is "overwhelming evidence for your position. In a serious and sincere discussion, both sides present their positions, and they discuss respectfully. Just telling me that I have to do it, but your side requires no evidence is not a serious discussion.

I have been asking on several threads for evidence of macroevolution, but it seems that you want me to simply accept your position without the same examination. It does not work that way.

Let's see if there is any interest in a serious discussion.

Okey-dokey. I'm going to pay no attention to Joggins. If you could have made a case for its relevance I'm guessing you would have done so by now. Now, I've said before that the academic scientific community favors macroevolution, a claim which asking has seconded. The only counterexample you have so far provided to this claim is the Discovery Institute, the scientific credentials of which have been publicly vitiated over the space of several years now. And, as I have also said, the view that asking and I favor is public and well-known; yours is not. If you continue to dissemble, I am going to conclude that it is because you have made claims which you are aware you are unable to support.

This is how I'll make up my mind. Others can do as seems appropriate for them.

A tree lives for a few hundred years, maybe. Evolutionists claim that there layers are millions of years in duration. We have a discrepancy between the timeframes. Since asking said that the animals found in the layers provide a records of the millions of years of evolution, the tree trunk may provide may also provide a clue as to how the layers were formed and over what period of time and thus may provide important information about how to interpret what the fossil layers really tell us.

So in your view, what DO the "fossil layers really tell us"? Do they tell us, for example, that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all the life forms represented there have lived and died within that span of time? Or that Noah's flood is what killed the dinosaurs? Or that God created fossils and rocks that only appear to be very old as a test of our faith in the Bible?

I would like to know what you think they "really tell us". You've been emphatic about what you think they DON'T tell us (macro-evolution occurred), but you still haven't said what you think they DO tell us.

Okey-dokey. I'm going to pay no attention to Joggins.

And I'll pay no attention to your unvalidated claims.

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

So in your view, what DO the "fossil layers really tell us"?

I have already responded to that a few times. I said that the fossil record is a huge topic and anyone who tells you that all fossils are the same and all formed the same way has not studied the topic in detail or is oversimplifying. Entre books, indeed volumes of books have been written in response to that question, so if you wish to discuss what the fossil record says, we need to be more specific.

Since I have already answered the question, why don't you take this opportunity to tell us what you think and why?

And I'll pay no attention to your unvalidated claims.

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

You've been asked by asking and by me to provide the names of "leading scientists" (the phrase is one you've used repeatedly) who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute and who reject macroevolution. You've yet to do so, so I am guessing you don't know of any. If I'm mistaken and you do, by all means bring them forward.

Akoue,
I have not seen ANY cases where asking has purposely mis-represented Tom Smith.
Have you?
If so please show me where.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Precambrian fossils have been know since the 1880s and earlier. There were certainly multicellular animals before the Cambrian explosion, but they lack hard skeletons and don't fossilize well. It's as if all organisms were single cells or marine slugs with no hard parts. There are fewer fossils from that period, but they definitely exist. Just not in as great numbers as those that come later. And of course since the Earth's crust erodes all the time, there are far, far more rocks that are 200 million years old than are 2000 million years old.

The Cambrian represents a major diversification and the appearance of both inside skeletons like ours and outside skeletons like those of insects and lobsters. Diversification is a common theme in Evolutionary biology. The diversification of marsupials in Australia is a smaller but equally interesting example. Diversification is where species come from, so it's not at odds with macroevolution, but, on the contrary, the very essence of it.

Fossils are not a red herring. They are the backbone (no pun intended) of all that we know of the history of life on Earth. All that molecular biology has done is to provide confirmation for 90% of what we already knew and minor adjustments to the other 10%. (I'm using these numbers only approximately.)

Molecular biology was like an independent witness coming into a criminal trial and confirming the statements of four earlier witnesses--first paleontology, then comparative anatomy of living species, then comparative embryology, and not least, biogeography--the distribution of both living organisms and extinct ones. All these earlier witnesses told the same basic story, although from different perspectives. Molecular biology confirmed their stories.

The fact of evolution comes from the fossil record. HOW evolution happened, the details of mechanism, are better sorted out by looking at genetics on the one hand and ecology--the furnace of selection--on the other.

The fact of evolution comes from the fossil record.

Really? FACT means that you are saying that evolution has been proven. Show us the proof.

You've been asked by asking and by me to provide the names of "leading scientists" (the phrase is one you've used repeatedly) who are not affiliated with the Discovery Institute and who reject macroevolution. You've yet to do so, so I am guessing you don't know of any. If I'm mistaken and you do, by all means bring them forward.

I already answered that. And maybe you did not get the memo but the "20 questions" game is over.

I notice that you only accept what those scientists say that you agree with, and reject those who disagree with you. I listen to all scientific evidence no matter where it comes from and I examine it objectively.

Others can decide which produces the most objective conclusion.

Tj, you keep saying that we reject your experts, but despite our having asked repeatedly for you to name a biologist other than Behe who agrees with you, you haven't named anyone whose views you've considered. Frances Collins? W.D. Hamilton? Name some names. Which biology experts are you alluding to?

I already answered that. And maybe you did not get the memo but the "20 questions" game is over.

At #356 I told you that if you continue to dissemble


I am going to conclude that it is because you have made claims which you are aware you are unable to support.

I have now concluded. If you had anything to offer besides maneuvers you'd have provided it by now.

I think that spells QED folks.

Tj, you keep saying that we reject your experts, but despite our having asked repeatedly for you to name a biologist other than Behe who agrees with you, you haven't named anyone whose views you've considered. Frances Collins? W.D. Hamilton? Name some names. Which biology experts are you alluding to?

Once again, the game is over. I already said that since both you and Akoue have already indicated that you reject anyone who disagrees with you, and that was before I mentioned any names. Why then should I waste my time when I see the pre-judgment based upon their views? You said that ALL biologists agree. Well, it is an absolute facts that they don't - so the only thing that I can take from that is that you deny that any biologists are real biologists if they disagree with your position. How is that science? Why should I then even waste my time providing names? You are just wasting my time asking if that is your approach. I do my research into the topic and I know who scientists on various sides of the issue because I am interested in what science has to say whether the specific scientists agree with me or not. I would strongly recommend that approach to anyone who wants to study any topic.

Show me that you have interest in a serious discussion, show me that you are open to scientific evidence which disagrees with you, show me that you respect scientists who disagree with you - all of those will enhance your credibility as a person with a serious and objective interest in the topic. Those things will give me more incentive to respond to requests like that.

I have now concluded. If you had anything to offer besides maneuvers you'd have provided it by now.

I feel the same about your argument. Indeed, the question that I started with - where is the proof for evolution remains a blank.

'nuff said.

Show me that you have interest in a serious discussion, show me that you are open to scientific evidence which disagrees with you, show me that you respect scientists who disagree with you - all of those will enhance your credibility as a person with a serious and objective interest in the topic. Those things will give me more incentive to respond to requests like that.

Show you? We aren't here to kiss your ring, Tom.

We've asked you to provide some names and you either can't or won't. Pony up or stop complaining.

Really? FACT means that you are saying that evolution has been proven. Show us the proof.

The fossil record.

Unless you can provide an alternative explanation for the whole of the fossil record, then evolution is certainly as firmly established as any fact you can think of. I have yet to see a coherent big-picture explanation for the entire fossil record that is consistent with special creation and, in particular, young earth creationism. Evolution explains the fossil record perfectly. Nothing else is known to do so. To be blunt, there is no other theory. It's like asking, What is the alternative to Newton's laws of gravity? There aren't any.

Science isn't always so cut and dried. For example, there is an alternate theory to the self/nonself theory of immunology. The alternate theory makes sense (to me) and some people think the older theory may be wrong.

There is No Alternate Explanation for the fossil record and all the other biological evidence that supports evolution. That's why, if you, Tom, could present an alternate theory that actually explained the fossil record, comparative morphology, comparative embryology, and biogeography, it would be so interesting and amazing. It is no shame that you don't have one. Any biologist who had even an inkling of such a theory would have been in all the major science magazines (and I'd have noticed). Science doesn't demand ten theories--just one that works.

The fossil record.

No. Even Darwin said that was the weakest argument and it is no stronger today. You have not even addressed the one question that I raised, which is pretty direct to the issue.


Unless you can provide an alternative explanation for the whole of the fossil record

Why should I when a critical point - how long of a timeframe do the periods represent - is something that you cannot address? And this is only one example of a more common issue in the fossil record.

The other issue, the order of the layers - your answer was essentially to interpret them so that they align with the theory of evolution. That does not address that issue either.

So it appears to me that you do not have an explanation for the fossil record. And I only raised two issues of the thousands that could be raised. So no, the fossil record is not proof,

Tom, thanks for the reddie. You should read the site rules sometime.

Guess you're just lashing out now.

Show you? We aren't here to kiss your ring, Tom.

We've asked you to provide some names and you either can't or won't. Pony up or stop complaining.

Nor I yours. Get that straight once and for all.

I responded. If you don't like the response, then too bad. Deal with it. I am not here to take orders from you.

Tom, thanks for the reddie. You should read the site rules sometime.

Guess you're just lashing out now.

See why I asked if anyone was interested in a serious discussion?

asking.
Again I must agree with you because YOU have been making sense and answering questions very well.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thanks, Fred.
You are very kind.

asking,
You're welcome.
Fred

>Thread Closed<

This has gone the way of oh so many other discussions.