Q For Darwinists: Are Fish Birds or Dinosaurs?

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Been there done that, which is why I consider the human body designed. Confirmed through testing.

How has it been tested?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Why? because they don't spoon-feed you the deep things of God all on one page?

You want 'internal consistency' problems with scripture?

How many times has the "second bible" been rewritten?

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. You should be telling them, not me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir. You should be telling them, not me.

The "second bible", LTTF -- know what I mean by that?

I keep getting it shoved in my face all the time and told to read it.

 

[driewerf]

With a little help from artists too, I imagine?

Find a tooth and a skull cap and next thing you know -- voila:

You're talking about Ken Ham's creation museum, arent't you?

With a little help from artists too, I imagine?

Find nothing and voila.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're talking about Ken Ham's creation museum, arent't you?

No -- I actually had Haeckel's drawings in mind -- but didn't want to be specific.

 

[Febble]

No -- I actually had Haeckel's drawings in mind -- but didn't want to be specific.

Really?

How odd.

 

[Febble]

Until you can make a car that can sexually reproduce, I don't accept your analogy.

Or asexually. The method isn't important

 

[AV1611VET]

Or asexually. The method isn't important

Really?

How odd.

 

[Targ]

Or asexually. The method isn't important

LTTF is correct, the analogy is wrong because it is not comparing like with like. The Paley's watchmaker and the Boeing 747 forming in a scrapyard analogies are both false because they are describing inanimate objects. They don't reproduce, mutate, they are not subject to natural selection and the analogies don't allow for millions of years within which for it to happen.

I know of no good analogies to describe evolution and always cringe whenever I hear preachers using the ones mentioned above.

 

[rockaction]

No -- I actually had Haeckel's drawings in mind -- but didn't want to be specific.

Embryology is one of my favorite subjects. I hate when the uneducated swoop in and say "those guys just fabricate everything".

Open a book and actually read what embryologists say these days. No one uses Haeckel's drawings. Embryology has progressed so much from the days of Haeckel. So PLEASE stop using Haeckel's drawings as an argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

No one uses Haeckel's drawings.

Did I say they did?

 

[rockaction]

Did I say they did?

If no one uses them, then it doesn't matter. Then they were just forged pictures by a liar. But you've said in the past that you believed they were still in textbooks.

 

[AV1611VET]

If no one uses them, then it doesn't matter. Then they were just forged pictures by a liar. But you've said in the past that you believed they were still in textbooks.

I may have, but I've since changed my stance.

I'll take those who disagreed at their word and assume they aren't being used anywhere today -- but just for the sake of arguing.

(Even one classroom using it would pwn the disagreers.)

 

[rockaction]

I may have, but I've since changed my stance.

I'll take those who disagreed at their word and assume they aren't being used anywhere today -- but just for the sake of arguing.

(Even one classroom using it would pwn the disagreers.)

There are 300,000+ papers in PubMed on Embryology. No one is scrounging to use Haeckel's incorrect drawings. It's a pretty safe stance, and I'm glad you've come around. You're getting closer...closer to allowing your beliefs to be shaped by evidence and support...

 

[Assyrian]

Except there's a virtual graveyard of trials-and-errors behind everything that survives.

If you're going to attribute evolution to God, don't just attribute the successes, attribute all those plants and animals that died in the process as well.

The smell alone should make you a literalist.

There was a graveyard of animal bones behind the temple. Wasn't that God's idea too? I think the smell you are complaining of here is fallacious creationist argument.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are 300,000+ papers in PubMed on Embryology. No one is scrounging to use Haeckel's incorrect drawings. It's a pretty safe stance, and I'm glad you've come around. You're getting closer...closer to allowing your beliefs to be shaped by evidence and support...

Is there a point to this conversation we're having?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the smell you are complaining of here is fallacious creationist argument.

I don't think so.

For every success story in the evolution paradigm, there's a chain of death and decay left behind; not to mention on-going fights for survival -- scratching, clawing and fighting one's way to the top.

 

[Assyrian]

Stretch on over to Ezekiel and compare spiritual things to spiritual:
Ezekiel 28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
God created Lucifer perfect, but then the entire rest of His creation sub-perfect?
Even if 'perfect' isn't the word -- (and it is) -- the fact that God did it would leave no room for improvement.

Whose ways were perfect?

 

[Assyrian]

<snip>There was a graveyard of animal bones behind the temple. Wasn't that God's idea too?</snip> I think the smell you are complaining of here is fallacious creationist argument.

I don't think so.

So why did you ignore my argument?

For every success story in the evolution paradigm, there's a chain of death and decay left behind; not to mention on-going fights for survival -- scratching, clawing and fighting one's way to the top.

So if that is how you feel, are you a vegetarian?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if that is how you feel, are you a vegetarian?

That's not how I feel -- evolution can take a hike.