[inthebox]

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

[arcura]

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

[arcura]

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

[asking]

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]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[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

[Tj3]

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?

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[Tj3]

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.

[Akoue]

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.

[arcura]

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

[Tj3]

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.

[asking]

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...tml#post947947

Post #138.
Your turn.

(Apologies for all the typos in it.)

[Tj3]

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...tml#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?

[asking]

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?

[arcura]

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