"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 asking
|
"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 asking
2 Tim 3:16 - God inspired the whole Bible and gave it to us for our edification.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryJS
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:
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.
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
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
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 MaryJS
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
Fred,Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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 asked one question. You are talking about her comments to different subtopics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nike 1
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.
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 Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Now kindly comport yourself in a civil manner.
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 ordinaryguy
Because I have a pattern of not doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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:
At #286 asking wrote: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?
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:
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:
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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?
I know that you would never accept as vague an answer as this from me:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
"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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Either way is fine, Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.Quote:
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.
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.
But apparently you do not wish to explain how it might have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.Quote:
Either way is fine, Tom.Quote:
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.
Would you please explain why you take this to be relevant to the question concerning macroevolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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
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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
This is how I'll make up my mind. Others can do as seems appropriate for them.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
And I'll pay no attention to your unvalidated claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Since I have already answered the question, why don't you take this opportunity to tell us what you think and why?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 AM. |