ok so you don't want to give us the names of transitions you believe in? What are you scared of? It simply generates discussion. I could slap a few down but it would be a waste of time if you particularly don't adhere to them.
So I ask an athiest, " are you sure there is no God."
not really He says,
then I say you are not an athiest but an agnostic.
then I ask what kind of agnostic are you?
the ornery kind or the ordinary kind?
the ordinary kind says - "we don't know anything for sure
the ornery kind says - "we CAN'T know anything for sure
Then He says "I am the ornery kind."
Then I say, "if you can't know any thing for sure how do you know THAT for sure?"
"In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?"
You can't be skeptical about everything, that means you would doubt skepticism.
The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become.
then He says I guess I am the ordinary kind.
(above dialogue from Norman Geisler-I don't have enough faith to be an athiest)
It is helpful for people of faith to at least TRY to understand atheism, but clearly it is such a threat that merely thinking about what an atheist thinks seems to cause them great agitation.
You know it doesn't require "faith" to be an atheist at all. Some of the best atheists are the kind of atheists that simply FAIL TO BELIEVE IN GOD!
Just like you FAIL TO BELIEVE that there's an invisible elephant living behind your sofa. Or you FAIL to believe in Zeus as the king of the gods. Or you FAIL to believe in magic fairies that make the TV come on.
It's not that this type of atheists says "There Is No God!" That's a universal negative and really hard to prove. But we all are similar in that we fail to believe in many things for which we do not perceive evidence.
I simply FAIL TO FIND EVIDENCE FOR GOD. So I fail to believe in him.
How is that a "faith based" concept?
Your change doesn't actually fix the problem. It still tells me nothing about God's properties, just that he creates things. It doesn't make him falsifiable, and it sure as shooting doesn't 'prove him beyond a reasonable doubt'.
I'm ok with that, but what you don't know is Loudmouth and Cabvet have issue with 8 people, 4 men 4 women reproducing the general population we have now.
Yet somehow one male and one female praying mantis reproduced the population we have today.
do you have any thing in between an ape and a human?
or a dinasaur and a bird?
everyone has transitional forms they believe are legitimate what are yours
science is definitately not perfect. Many scientific theories are superceded...
See if I believe that the Noah story is true, I also believe the creator can allow anything to happen.
Since there is no creator in your story, tell me how a sperm knows how to swim, and look for an egg?
I changed my comment to "creator" as my definition. Same thing, falsifiable and provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
So I ask an athiest, " are you sure there is no God."
not really He says,
then I say you are not an athiest but an agnostic.
then I ask what kind of agnostic are you?
the ornery kind or the ordinary kind?
the ordinary kind says - "we don't know anything for sure
the ornery kind says - "we CAN'T know anything for sure
Then He says "I am the ornery kind."
Then I say, "if you can't know any thing for sure how do you know THAT for sure?"
"In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?"
You can't be skeptical about everything, that means you would doubt skepticism.
The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become.
then He says I guess I am the ordinary kind.
(above dialogue from Norman Geisler-I don't have enough faith to be an athiest)
Does google not work in you part of the interwebs? A google search for "transitional hominid" and "transitional birds" worked for me.
Dino to bird:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ancestral ape to man:
Evolution -- Transitional Hominids
What features would a fossil need in order for you to consider it legitimate?
So you use the loving way of placing the equivalent of a loaded firearm to the side of a child's head, in an effort to persuade them what to believe.As a dad I warn my children of hell. I call that Love. God being a father, thought it important that he told fathers that also.
EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION! EVILUTION!The same as they were when your species bred outside of their species during the billion year reign of EVILUTION.
Teaching children *is* the natural thing to do. How else are they to learn?Same as there was need for RNA, DNA and a GENE for evolution to work.
I thought you said you were a father? Why do you teach your children anything; why not let nature take its course.
Were you that kid that also pulled the legs off of bugs?Did you know if you were to open a cocoon at the very point the butterfly was fully developed it would not survive because it wasn't strong enough. Since you didn't allow it to struggle it's way out and strengthen.
Those that had the "swim" mutation may have had slightly more viable offspring than those that did not.If your explanation for fertilization is based on 50 to 100 million sperms swimming with no object in mind explain to me why swim at all?
Evolution does not evolve anything as needed. Extinction is common. Where do you get these ideas?If evolution evolved as a need was required;
What you and your wife do behind closed doors is none of my business.why not have the sperm come out of the mouth, as almost all species put their mouths there first, if not their noses.
That we are here.Reminds me, if RNA, DNA, and a gene have no purpose in mind, or reason to do what they do; what makes you think they came together to form anything.
why not have the sperm come out of the mouth, as almost all species put their mouths there first, if not their noses.
Reminds me, if RNA, DNA, and a gene have no purpose in mind, or reason to do what they do; what makes you think they came together to form anything.
I am ignostic on this subject. (no, not agnostic)
I am wagering that you do not understand "God". I wager that you cannot provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what you mean by "God" right here in these forums.
If you really do understand "God" this should not be a problem.
What will we wager?
Your soul; my pride.
science is definitately not perfect. Many scientific theories are superceded...
Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong) - Toptenz.net
How about a list of top 10 religions that turned out to be wrong?
Atheism is on top.
Do not forget to add evolution.
And Pizza.
Go on...
Evolution and Pizza, 7 more to go.
So, how would we test that? You may as well say Bob is our creator.Thats easy, God is our Creator. Thats it, you just wanted a definition of God.
A false dichotomy while conflating the big bang with abiogenesis? Comical.And since we have never proved abiogenesis, the only other option is that someone created us. (as opposed to nothing exploding).
What I believe is not on the table right now.Falsifiable? Yeah sure. It could also be that nothing exploded. What would you believe?