Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryJS

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryJS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryJS

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryJS

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nike 1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akoue

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.