Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[AV1611VET]

demons who claim to be god are not worth my time.

That's probably what a lot of D&D players and Ouija Board dabblers thought, too.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's probably what a lot of D&D players and Ouija Board dabblers thought, too.

I find it hilarious that some people still think that D&D and Ouija boards are evil.

D&D: Just a game.
Ouija Board: A way to play pranks on your credulous friends.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's probably what a lot of D&D players and Ouija Board dabblers thought, too.

If god is the agent of fear, who needs demons?

 

[AV1611VET]

If god is the agent of fear, who needs demons?

If God is the Agent of fear, would you [personally] try to evangelize someone who was wearing a T-shirt that said NO FEAR?

 

[MoonLancer]

If God is the Agent of fear, would you [personally] try to evangelize someone who was wearing a T-shirt that said NO FEAR?

in this scenario am I someone like you?

If I am the me in the here and now, and someone had a shirt that said No FEAR, I would commend them. Most likely the shirt was in reference to our soon to be removed republican government, or our current theocracy.

 

[RobertByers]

Incorrect. Evolution restricts variation to lines of descent. If a bird species alive today develops some new evolutionary structure, there's no way in hell a mammal species will be able to incorporate that structure into its own anatomy. There's just no mechanism available for the transfer of that information from one species to another.

Because variation is limited to lines of descent, we expect with evolution to see traits that come together as "package deals". And this is exactly what we do see.

But with a creator? We don't know what to expect. A creator can do anything at all. If a creator finds that a certain structure works well in a bird, it is perfectly capable of implementing that same structure in a mammal. So we have no reason, a priori, to believe that a creator would restrict variation in the way that evolution does.


This hinges upon the idea that mammary glands would be useless without fur, and other similar claims. Somehow I have a hard time buying that.

Fur and glans means nothing to me.

A creater would make everything from a single model and reshape as there is need.
Of coarse a bird adaptation will not become a mammal one.
The point was that its unlikely that evolution would not have all kinds of results in creatures when in fact creatures seem to be based on the same model. As one would expect from a simple single blueprint and one creator.
Everyone has eyes, ears, and so on. Yet surely in its time and bump and grind evolution would have eyes of any numbers and in the back of heads for many.
A way of looking at things.
God would not make each creature out of no relation to common principals. like gavity there is laws in biology. Not a mishmash as evolution should produce.
most of life looks the same when you get beyond the differences.
The same idea from a same creative idea.

 

[Chalnoth]

A creater would make everything from a single model and reshape as there is need.

Why? Why not make a number of different models? Why not mix and match parts with existing models?

Of coarse a bird adaptation will not become a mammal one.

Why not? A creator can do anything it pleases. So why not?

The point was that its unlikely that evolution would not have all kinds of results in creatures when in fact creatures seem to be based on the same model. As one would expect from a simple single blueprint and one creator.
Everyone has eyes, ears, and so on. Yet surely in its time and bump and grind evolution would have eyes of any numbers and in the back of heads for many.
A way of looking at things.

This is because evolution is descent with modification. Creatures that you see that have the same basic model descended from the same ancestor that also had that model. Evolution places strong restrictions on what sorts of variation can exist, as all variation has to come through descent, and all variation must be capable of being passed on (i.e. it must be either beneficial or at worst neutral...variations that are detrimental to reproduction get weeded out almost immediately).

We see no variation that is forbidden by evolution. Why is that?

 

[RobertByers]

i see, the fossil record was just conveniently left to make it look like complex life evolved from simple life. Youbetcha!

what mechanic was used to help these bats to grow wings? what were they like before they had wings? how do you know? if wings can be formed by this strange unknown mechanic? surly other changes can be made? Whats to stop change after change from compiling upon each other to create something wonderful and new?

ps: av this is what cognitive distance is

Moon it doesn't look like that.
Its just a interpretation of rocks in the field. There are not primitive to complex but rather "primitive" from lower collects of sediment in some currents of the flood. Just like today one would have a false impression of biology if the bottom of the sea was fossilized and then up. one would think the bottom is the first life but actually just particular areas of earth as of today.
Rock strata are just from different currents during the flood. What is in it is from collections logically starting at the bottom.

I suspect bats are only post flood because they are not found below the k-t line. They just filled a niche in a post flood world. i don't know the mechanism for the sudden adaption of batwings. Yet I see it as a small matter. Just like water creatures losing quickly theor legs and sailing the blue sea.

 

[RobertByers]

maybe if you had some evidence to support your creator, peoplee might listen to you. until that time comes, we only will look at the information available now. i can make stuff up just as easly as the guys who wrote the bible can. heck, i can do a better job at making it sound more believable.
the authors of the bible had no clue about science and its impact on discovery of information and facts.

what about flying fish? or flying squirrels?
why do flying insects have a completely different wing than birds?
why are some birds flightless?
if they are flightless birds, why call them birds?
your creator theory explains nothing except that you are too lazy to find out the truth.

"god did it" kept humanity in the dark ages for centuries, its time to grow up.

all mammals ARE related, they all share a common ancestor. this is why they all share common traits (fur, nipples, etc..)

explain why there are so many different wing designs...(please show your work)

Flying fish, squirels. ? Why is this a good point for your side.
These creatures do not fly but glide. They are not like birds.
In fact their gliding abilities are similiar. anyways these may be post flood adaptations. The wing designs are very similiar and minor difference are for important reasons.
These few differences fail to show evolution at work as it should be.
They show rather a very common blueprint including room for variety.
If God created birds then he would use the same plan and not make every bird different in wings. If this was the case evolution thumpers would say aha. Evolution explains the great diversity in wings. A god wouldn't do that. YOU might have a point but its not this way.
Birds and all critters seem on a very general plan. two eyes, ears, butt, and for some wings. Complexity with a plan equals a complex planner.
A thinking being.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Apparently this thread isn't about dino footprints anymore.

 

[Shadrach76]

God would not make each creature out of no relation to common principals. like gavity there is laws in biology. Not a mishmash as evolution should produce.
most of life looks the same when you get beyond the differences.
The same idea from a same creative idea.

why do your gods creatures need to change at all?

wouldnt your god know that they needed to be built in a way that fit the area he wanted them to live and make them perfectly suited for that area?

why do you make your god seem almost inept at making animals?