Dinosaur footprints destroy flood geology.

[MrGoodBytes]

Let me repeat:

So your answer is that there is no definition of the biblical "kind", and there can never be one?

 

[AV1611VET]

So your answer is that there is no definition of the biblical "kind", and there can never be one?

Correct --- but it's a common sense definition.

It would only be logical that the first animals to appear would be at the top of the taxon list - [or whatever you call it].

Man, whales, beasts of the earth, birds of the air --- their specific taxonomic entries are not mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Assyrian]

Does it now? I think there's this little thing called "missing links"; and if not, then I assume you're telling me that you have at least one representative of every single sub-sub-sub species from Cocker Spaniel all the way back to this archaea [whatever that is]? Just out of curiosity, what is the Cocker Spaniel's immediate predecessor?

So you are saying we can't know Cocker Spaniels or poodles are descended from wolves because we don't know the breeds in between?

Science can work out the family tree by tracing at anatomical similarities in the fossils we have without having every member of the family tree. Finding transitional forms in between simply confirms the ancestry science already worked out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science can work out the family tree by tracing at anatomical similarities in the fossils we have without having every member of the family tree. Finding transitional forms in between simply confirms the ancestry science already worked out.

TRANSLATION: Missing links do indeed exist, but until we find them, we'll consider that the animals representative of said links did indeed exist.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Correct --- but it's a common sense definition.

Common sense rarely comes into play when attempting to justify Biblical Literalism.

 

[RobertByers]

Just because the Bible doesn't say something doesn't mean it isn't true. The Bible doesn't say our Sun is a star, for instance, or that the Earth travels around it.


No, what I'm saying is that the classification of mammals existed quite a while before people believed that these animals were related by descent.

And you honestly think it's just coincidence that every animal that has fur also has mammary glands, and only animals with fur do? You honestly think it's coincidence that these animals also always have particular bones in their ears, and particular sorts of teeth? That these features are found in no other animals alive today? Do you not think that the fact that these features always come together needs explaining?

The classification system was from dumber times.

Not coincedence but if you need fur or ears then you got it. you need it and your body has the ability to provide. A common blueprint provides all.
Mammary glands are usefull but unrelated to fur. Ear bones are for aneed in hearing and could only be that way. If you had different ear bones for every mammal you would tell me WHY WOULD A GOD do that. You would say its from selection pressures and evidence of happenchance. I want ear bones to be the same because of the same creater and blueprint. Not because of biological heritage. Same with teeth. Same teeth for same need. Feet too.
If selection pressures were acting on every creature in its early stages then you wouldn't have the same results due to probability.

 

[Shadrach76]

A common blueprint provides all.
Mammary glands are usefull but unrelated to fur. Ear bones are for aneed in hearing and could only be that way....

Not because of biological heritage. Same with teeth. Same teeth for same need. Feet too.
If selection pressures were acting on every creature in its early stages then you wouldn't have the same results due to probability.

i guess it would make sense if this was true across the animal kingdom but its not. reptiles, amphibians, insects and mammals all have different builds that best suit their enviroments.
the creatures that couldnt evolve to deal with their surroundings died off and replaced by species that could adapt.

science can provide mountains of evidence to support these claims, can your religion provide any?

 

[Chalnoth]

The classification system was from dumber times.

And your creation myth was from even dumber times. Do you really want to go down this road?

Not coincedence but if you need fur or ears then you got it. you need it and your body has the ability to provide. A common blueprint provides all.

Nonsense! Birds hear just fine without having this extra ear bone. And they're able to eat just fine without teeth. The mammal body plan is only one possibility. There is no fundamental reason why an animal with both fur and feathers wouldn't work, or an animal with a bird's beak and fur wouldn't work. But we don't see these animals. Why not?

Mammary glands are usefull but unrelated to fur.

Then why are the two always found together?

If you had different ear bones for every mammal you would tell me WHY WOULD A GOD do that.

Of course! If reality were different, then why reality is as it is would still be a valid question to ask. This does not change.

The point is that the way reality is now is quite well explained by evolution. Through evolution, we understand why all of these traits shared among mammals always come together. We understand why you don't get mixtures of, for example, bird traits and mammal traits. We understand why certain traits are always linked by common heredity, while others appear again and again and again.

Positing "god did it" offers none of this understanding. It doesn't answer anything. It's just a veil for ignorance, a way of getting yourself to think you understand something you really don't.

I want ear bones to be the same because of the same creater and blueprint. Not because of biological heritage. Same with teeth. Same teeth for same need. Feet too.

Except it doesn't work. Because different lineages come up with quite different body parts to perform the same task. Just compare a bird's wing to a bat's or an insect's. They all do the same thing, but are extremely different structures. Reptiles and birds have ears just as mammals do, but they lack the extra bone that we have. Or compare our eye to the eye of a fly or a spider. Once again, same task, but very different structure.

So no, Rob, your explanation of a "common designer" makes no sense at all: life just has too many body plans for that. And it doesn't have any variation at all in the ways that evolution prohibits. Why is that?

 

[RobertByers]

And your creation myth was from even dumber times. Do you really want to go down this road?


Nonsense! Birds hear just fine without having this extra ear bone. And they're able to eat just fine without teeth. The mammal body plan is only one possibility. There is no fundamental reason why an animal with both fur and feathers wouldn't work, or an animal with a bird's beak and fur wouldn't work. But we don't see these animals. Why not?


Then why are the two always found together?


Of course! If reality were different, then why reality is as it is would still be a valid question to ask. This does not change.

The point is that the way reality is now is quite well explained by evolution. Through evolution, we understand why all of these traits shared among mammals always come together. We understand why you don't get mixtures of, for example, bird traits and mammal traits. We understand why certain traits are always linked by common heredity, while others appear again and again and again.

Positing "god did it" offers none of this understanding. It doesn't answer anything. It's just a veil for ignorance, a way of getting yourself to think you understand something you really don't.


Except it doesn't work. Because different lineages come up with quite different body parts to perform the same task. Just compare a bird's wing to a bat's or an insect's. They all do the same thing, but are extremely different structures. Reptiles and birds have ears just as mammals do, but they lack the extra bone that we have. Or compare our eye to the eye of a fly or a spider. Once again, same task, but very different structure.

So no, Rob, your explanation of a "common designer" makes no sense at all: life just has too many body plans for that. And it doesn't have any variation at all in the ways that evolution prohibits. Why is that?

It makes perfect sense that a creator is behind the common results in creatures. its evolution that should have everything mixed up.
Mammals are the same because it suits them Birds likewise. you can't say birds being different from mammals makes your point. They were special groups of creatures mentioned by genesis. All birds are alike from a common blueprint and due to need and all "mammals". I don't like the term mammals as if it indicates relatedness. Wings in things makes my point. The great catergories of wings fits with a design. By the way this creationist suspects bats are a post adaptation only.

 

[Chalnoth]

It makes perfect sense that a creator is behind the common results in creatures. its evolution that should have everything mixed up.

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.

Mammals are the same because it suits them Birds likewise.

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.

 

[MoonLancer]

It makes perfect sense that a creator is behind the common results in creatures. its evolution that should have everything mixed up.
Mammals are the same because it suits them Birds likewise. you can't say birds being different from mammals makes your point. They were special groups of creatures mentioned by genesis. All birds are alike from a common blueprint and due to need and all "mammals". I don't like the term mammals as if it indicates relatedness. Wings in things makes my point. The great catergories of wings fits with a design. By the way this creationist suspects bats are a post adaptation only.

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

 

[Shadrach76]

It makes perfect sense that a creator is behind the common results in creatures. its evolution that should have everything mixed up.

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.

Mammals are the same because it suits them Birds likewise...
you can't say birds being different from mammals makes your point. They were special groups of creatures mentioned by genesis. All birds are alike from a common blueprint and due to need and all "mammals".

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.

I don't like the term mammals as if it indicates relatedness.

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

Wings in things makes my point. The great catergories of wings fits with a design.

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

 

[AV1611VET]

i can make stuff up just as easly as the guys who wrote the bible can.

Can you now? The thing is, you had to pluralize "guy".

Anyone can write a story, but to match "the guys who wrote the bible", you would have to write something up, then, oh, about 50 years later, someone would have to write another chapter in your story, while at the same time, someone on another continent is writing independently of you, but saying the same thing. Then, to top off your made-up story, you'd have to sprinkle in some pretty outlandish predictions, and they would have to come to pass with 100% accuracy --- no exceptions.

So go right ahead and make stuff up --- all it will show is that you can make stuff up.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Can you now? The thing is, you had to pluralize "guy".

Anyone can write a story, but to match "the guys who wrote the bible", you would have to write something up, then, oh, about 50 years later, someone would have to write another chapter in your story, while at the same time, someone on another continent is writing independently of you, but saying the same thing.

How well the parts of the Bible fit together is a matter of aesthetics and personal opinion and therefore not a valid criterion.

Then, to top off your made-up story, you'd have to sprinkle in some pretty outlandish predictions, and they would have to come to pass with 100% accuracy --- no exceptions.

So go right ahead and make stuff up --- all it will show is that you can make stuff up.

Predictions that are only ever mentioned in the same book that also records their fulfillment. Worthless.

 

[AV1611VET]

How well the parts of the Bible fit together is a matter of aesthetics and personal opinion and therefore not a valid criterion.

Either that, or, sans God, a matter of coincidence --- too coincidental, in fact, to be validated scientifically.

Predictions that are only ever mentioned in the same book that also records their fulfillment. Worthless.

I'm sure that's what Nero and Arafat thought as well.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Either that, or, sans God, a matter of coincidence --- too coincidental, in fact, to be validated scientifically.

I'm not sure what you mean. My point is that attempting to validate the Bible by arguing that it's impossible for so many authors to write something so coherent relies on subjective judgment and personal opinion. Incidentally, many Muslims claim that the Quran must be divinely inspired because no human could ever write something so great - of course, this argument is just as flawed as yours. One could just as well try to establish an objective list of the most beautiful paintings of all time.

I'm sure that's what Nero and Arafat thought as well.

No doubt, though I'm not sure how these two were mistaken by doing so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure what you mean. My point is that attempting to validate the Bible by arguing that it's impossible for so many authors to write something so coherent relies on subjective judgment and personal opinion.

Really? Give it a try in a controlled setting.

Better start ASAP though, so your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren can verify the results.

Incidentally, many Muslims claim that the Quran must be divinely inspired because no human could ever write something so great - of course, this argument is just as flawed as yours.

No, it's not --- not even close.

Notice that to make your point, you had to say human [singular], not humans [plural]. The Quran was written by one man in one lifetime. A man that claims to be a prophet, in spite of what the Bible claims about no more prophecies after AD 96. [I know, you'll want to know where It says that.]

One could just as well try to establish an objective list of the most beautiful paintings of all time.

Knock yourself out.

No doubt, though I'm not sure how these two were mistaken by doing so.

Their Enemy outlived them.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Really? Give it a try in a controlled setting.

How could I? It's purely a matter of taste and aestetics. Personally, I agree with Marcion of Sinope, who thought that the Old and New Testaments spoke of two different gods, one evil, one good, but I'm aware that the majority of people don't share that opinion.

Better start ASAP though, so your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren can verify the results.

What results?

No, it's not --- not even close.

Notice that to make your point, you had to say human [singular], not humans [plural]. The Quran was written by one man in one lifetime. A man that claims to be a prophet, in spite of what the Bible claims about no more prophecies after AD 96.

You misunderstood me. My point was that both Christians and Muslims make similar arguments based on personal opinion - you say that the Bible must have been divinely inspired because it fits together so well despite the numerous authors, the Muslims say that the Quran must be divinely inspired because a simple man like Mohammed couldn't have written something so profound and beautiful.

Since both coherency (in this case) and beauty are subjective concepts, neither of these arguments are valid.

[I know, you'll want to know where It says that.]

Yes, please.

Knock yourself out.

I can't. It's not possible. That's my whole point.

Their Enemy outlived them.

And there's a prophecy that foretold that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally, I agree with Marcion of Sinope, who thought that the Old and New Testaments spoke of two different gods, one evil, one good, but I'm aware that the majority of people don't share that opinion.

Are you and Marcion of Sinope also aware that the Old Testament covers a period of about 4000 years, and depicts God the Father in many different circumstances and roles --- everything from peace to war, rebellion, and attempts at hostile takovers; whereas the New Testament only covers a period of about 100 years, and depicts God the Son, acting in the capacity of a sacrificial lamb?

Are you and Marcion of Sinope aware that Jesus said, "I and my Father are One"? Meaning (either way you interpret "One") that Jesus was in complete agreement with the death of Egypt's firstborn who didn't have the blood sprinkled on their doorposts?

Are you and Marcion of Sinope aware that the worst condemnation ever pronounced on the human race came, not from the Old Testament, but from Jesus' lips?

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

 

[MoonLancer]

Are you and Marcion of Sinope aware that the worst condemnation ever pronounced on the human race came, not from the Old Testament, but from Jesus' lips?

But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

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