Evolution of whales

[Natro]

Let's say you have a bus,

k

and one day it decided to turn into a submarine one part at a time,

Sure thats not how evolution works but ok

when it lost it's wheels, it couldn't move and before it could grow fins it died of need of gasoline. Even if the bus got into water before it got fins, how could the bus swim? It would drown!! Same with the evolution of a whale.

You got one dumb bus why didn't it turn into a submarine over time like evolution.

 

[RoboMastodon]

Let's say you have a bus, and one day it decided to turn into a submarine one part at a time, when it lost it's wheels, it couldn't move and before it could grow fins it died of need of gasoline. Even if the bus got into water before it got fins, how could the bus swim? It would drown!! Same with the evolution of a whale.

Buses don't reproduce. Dogs can swim and don't have fins and so can we.

 

[Jet Black]

Let's say you have a bus(1), and one day it decided to(2) turn into a submarine one part at a time(3), when it lost it's wheels, it couldn't move and before it could grow fins it died of need of gasoline(4). Even if the bus got into water before it got fins, how could the bus swim? It would drown!! Same with the evolution of a whale.

right, first of all your analogy is nonsense. here is why

(1) buses don't reproduce
(2) individuals don't evolve, populations do
(3) evolution doesn't happen one part at a time.
(4) buses cannot float or propel themselves through the water at all
(5) many animals can float or propel themselves through water even if they are primarily land living. examples include: dogs, horses, sheep, elephants, bears.... need I really go on?

Your argument is commonly known as a straw man. A strawman is an argument where you misrepresent the opposing argument by producing a weaker, inaccurate version, and then demonstrate the flaws in your weak inaccurate version.

now I am not going to go into the complexities of whale evolution, but I wish to show you how it would proceed, in order to demonstrate your fallacy.

(1) a group of animals begin to feed principally from the water, or watery regions. perhaps due to lack of food/increased competition elsewhere or just happening to chance upon a good food source.
(2) those individuals that are better at feeding in this environment because of their slightly different bodies will reproduce more, so their genes spread. these differences might be things like slightly different nostril position, webbing between the toes, increased amounts of blubber, or even just general behavioural traits enabling them to feed beter in water
(3) #2 continues, with successive mutations and variations increasing the group's ability to feed in water. eventually these differences adapt the group increasingly towards life in water, for example, changes in the structure of the inner ear allowing them to hear better underwater.
(4) eventually the changes become so great that while they are now pretty good in the water, they are pretty hopeless on land. they would probably have to start giving birth in shallow water in order to avoid more terrestrially nimble predators.
(5) eventually the transition is complete, features that were once useful on land are now either adapted to life in water (ears, jaws, musculature, forelimbs) and features that are useless may be lost entirely (rear limbs)

This contains within it all the things that actually happen in evolution, namely evolution of populations, gradual change over generations, adaptation of features as a result of different breeding success.

I hope you can see how you were in error with your strawman analogy.

 

[Split Rock]

Let's say you have a bus, and one day it decided to turn into a submarine one part at a time, when it lost it's wheels, it couldn't move and before it could grow fins it died of need of gasoline. Even if the bus got into water before it got fins, how could the bus swim? It would drown!! Same with the evolution of a whale.

Wow. No wonder you stopped "believing" in evolution. Your concept of the theory is completely Wrong!

1. Buses don't reproduce. Whales do.
2. Whales didn't lose their arms and then grew fins. Whale hands gradually adapted to an aquatic lifestyle. They have the same bones in the same pattern that you have in your hand. If you went into the water, would you drown because you don't have fins?

 

[dad]

Do we all have such power over God to "force" Him to do what He otherwise wouldn't?



I'm just curious about how you intend to incorporate the spiritual into your mythical "outside-the-box" science.

Do all the children of a large family have the power to make the parents react when needed, say to save them from danger? If He says something like "The nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell" then that nation does not obey, what else can He do, but withdraw His protection somewhat, so their enemies wipe them out, and they reap some of what they sowed, etc? We are very important to Him.
Like if someone goes to stick their finger right in your eye real quick, we react. We are the apple of His eye, and when someone touches it, He reacts. Things do 'force' His Hand!
Now as far as incorporating the spiritual into science, the main thing is to simply admit that there was more than, (or may have been more than) only the physical at work. The only thing I can see it affecting, is to stop belief based speculations that the physical only was all there ever was! All the rest of it stands as is, pretty well, and is great, as we can find out how to better ourselves, make medicines, and see how our physical universe was set up, and operates.
Now, for some believing scientists, why, they may take it even a bit further, as new light is shed on the fossil record, the unifying principle, etc.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Do all the children of a large family have the power to make the parents react when needed, say to save them from danger?

The parents are forced to react in ways they hadn't intended or expected. God is not. Omniscience makes it impossible.

If He says something like "The nation that will not obey shall be turned into hell" then that nation does not obey, what else can He do, but withdraw His protection somewhat, so their enemies wipe them out, and they reap some of what they sowed, etc?

He can always change His mind.

Like if someone goes to stick their finger right in your eye real quick, we react. We are the apple of His eye, and when someone touches it, He reacts. Things do 'force' His Hand!

Not at all. One cannot "force" God to do what He was going to do anyway. Do not forget that God has the advantage of absolute foreknowledge. How does one sway Him for any part, no matter how minute, of the divine plan?

Now as far as incorporating the spiritual into science, the main thing is to simply admit that there was more than, (or may have been more than) only the physical at work.

Ok, let's do that, hypothetically, for the moment.
What exactly have we changed, on a practical level?
Which experiments, equations, have to be recalculated as a result of this new data?

The only thing I can see it affecting, is to stop belief based speculations that the physical only was all there ever was!

Ok, let's concede the existence of the unseen, unfelt, but very much real spiritual.

Again, what changes?

All the rest of it stands as is, pretty well, and is great, as we can find out how to better ourselves, make medicines, and see how our physical universe was set up, and operates.

So...nothing changes? Outside "the Box" looks exactly the same as inside it?

Now, for some believing scientists, why, they may take it even a bit further, as new light is shed on the fossil record, the unifying principle, etc.

How does "The Spiritual" change the physical evidence of the Fossil Record?

 

[dad]

The parents are forced to react in ways they hadn't intended or expected. God is not. Omniscience makes it impossible

Notice the 'science' on the end there! He is all knowing yes, but operates on earth according to the rules He set up, and the name of the game here is free will! Just cause He knows, doesn't make Him some Omnimonster!

He can always change His mind

About many things, of course, why not? But not about His word.

How does one sway Him for any part, no matter how minute, of the divine plan?

Ha. Well, men have got Him to stay His Hand of judgements. Men have got Him to change weather. Noah could have prayed for a safe voyage, but would not have been able to successfully ask for no flood. WE'll just have to disagree about all this predestination stuff.

Which experiments, equations, have to be recalculated as a result of this new data?

Not the speed of light. No. The speed it did travel in a merged universe, yes. Not the rate of decay now, no. The lack of decay process in the merge, yes. Not the speed continental plates now trave, no, this is fine. The speed at which they may have travelled in a merge situation, with the spiritual elements working together with the physical, yes. Etc. Basically anywhere they try to leave the box!!

Ok, let's concede the existence of the unseen, unfelt, but very much real spiritual.

Halelujah! At last.

Again, what changes?

Nothing much in our present world at all! Everything in one imagined long ago, or in the future.

So...nothing changes? Outside "the Box" looks exactly the same as inside it?

The box is the physical only. Outside of these limitations, of course we don't have physical only! We have value added-the spiritual.

How does "The Spiritual" change the physical evidence of the Fossil Record?

It doesn't a bit, it just opens men's understanding to what really went on! There was a Garden of Eden with the spiritual, and a creation, and we simply veiw the record in it's proper context, that of a creation and migration of life, rather than imagined long ages, an erased God, and a lifeform appearing from they know not where, or how, to produce all life!

 

[rjw]

Of course, just not limited to only physical science, as all that ever was, which there can be no evidence for, since it was not all that there was.
Let's not get on a high horse here. We know what is the issue, is the projection of the physical only -on the futeur or far past. This we cannot do, if we are christians, or believers in some other faiths, because we have hard biblical evidence the spiritual was also at work with the physical!
Now if you have no other beliefs save that of the physical only, the only thing left to discuss, would be the best way to live equal and seperate, such as with schools not just funded mostly for the one belief!
Many on this forum however, are also christians, and in the scientific community (also jews, etc.) -which is where I might hope they will see the point of a biblically impossible physical only future, or past.

..Nor the price of tea in China. but it does your post it responded to "To do so from some scientific sense would require you to have some evidence for the psyche of your god. .."

No, their opinion, and eloquent language, whic the Almighty Himself really brushed off quite nicely, I thought, for the foolishness it was!
Job 38:2 - Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

!!!!!!

Gidday dad,

We know what is the issue, is the projection of the physical only -on the futeur or far past. This we cannot do, if we are christians, or believers in some other faiths, because we have hard biblical evidence the spiritual was also at work with the physical!

Ok dad. Since you wish to call this science, then use your particular theory to explain the process by which rain formed in the remote past, by which it forms now, and by which it will form in the future. In particular use it to describe how rain forms now.

No, their opinion, and eloquent language, whic the Almighty Himself really brushed off quite nicely, I thought, for the foolishness it was!
Job 38:2 - Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

So the real knowledge is that when your god quells the stormy seas he does so by locking them behind doors; when he created the earth he laid down a foundation stone etc?


Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Ok dad. Since you wish to call this science, then use your particular theory to explain the process by which rain formed in the remote past, by which it forms now, and by which it will form in the future. In particular use it to describe how rain forms now.

We know a mist came up to water the earth. How could this be? I wonder myself. Can a mist come up through solid hard rock? Could the new planet have been much less hard and compressed? If there was a canopy around earth, how would this affect the weather systems? Apparently there was a time of day when each day had a windy time, known as the 'cool of the day' as well. Would the early atmosphere contribute to the mix? I think we have a pretty good idea the world was warmer, and more temperate as well. Take away the ice in the poles, and add this to the mix as well, for it is possible the ice came after the flood. These are some things we would need to add to the calculations. Being in a merged state also, gives us plenty to work in as well. Too bad science on this last one would not be up to the job, nevertheless, some believers ought to be able to have a bit of fun with what we do have here. As to how the weather works now, I think a meteorologist would be the one to best answer that. It works how it works in this physical only world, of course, and we know what we know about it. Not to forget the localized influence of the spiritual, which can be brought to bear, thereby tweaking the norm, or downright turning it on it's heels sometimes if need be as well!

So the real knowledge is that when your god quells the stormy seas he does so by locking them behind doors; when he created the earth he laid down a foundation stone etc?

Actually, yes. If you understood what you were saying, of course, as the Almighty does. Were you there? Do you have any evidence there was no foundation laid for the earth? Do you know what and when these things God does and did were? I read in there that during creation He quelled stormy seas, because it was then the foundations were laid. (or was it? Do you know?)
But the other stuff, about how the unkind bozo thought the weather worked, and all, we have the word on that. The Almighty says "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
Ha.

 

[rjw]

We know a mist came up to water the earth. How could this be? I wonder myself. Can a mist come up through solid hard rock? Could the new planet have been much less hard and compressed? If there was a canopy around earth, how would this affect the weather systems? Apparently there was a time of day when each day had a windy time, known as the 'cool of the day' as well. Would the early atmosphere contribute to the mix? I think we have a pretty good idea the world was warmer, and more temperate as well. Take away the ice in the poles, and add this to the mix as well, for it is possible the ice came after the flood. These are some things we would need to add to the calculations. Being in a merged state also, gives us plenty to work in as well. Too bad science on this last one would not be up to the job, nevertheless, some believers ought to be able to have a bit of fun with what we do have here. As to how the weather works now, I think a meteorologist would be the one to best answer that. It works how it works in this physical only world, of course, and we know what we know about it. Not to forget the localized influence of the spiritual, which can be brought to bear, thereby tweaking the norm, or downright turning it on it's heels sometimes if need be as well!

Actually, yes. If you understood what you were saying, of course, as the Almighty does. Were you there? Do you have any evidence there was no foundation laid for the earth? Do you know what and when these things God does and did were? I read in there that during creation He quelled stormy seas, because it was then the foundations were laid. (or was it? Do you know?)
But the other stuff, about how the unkind bozo thought the weather worked, and all, we have the word on that. The Almighty says "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"
Ha.

Gidday dad,

We know a mist came up to water the earth.

How do you know it? Where is your evidence?

How could this be? I wonder myself. Can a mist come up through solid hard rock? Could the new planet have been much less hard and compressed? If there was a canopy around earth, how would this affect the weather systems?

This is all pure speculation. Where is your evidence?

Apparently there was a time of day when each day had a windy time, known as the 'cool of the day' as well. Would the early atmosphere contribute to the mix? I think we have a pretty good idea the world was warmer, and more temperate as well.

We know the world was wetter, drier, hotter, colder, had more O2, had less O2, was more temperate, was less temperate. It all depends on what period you take the evidence from and where you examine it. So exactly where are you going to take your data from such that you can say that the world was wetter and more temperate?

Take away the ice in the poles, and add this to the mix as well, for it is possible the ice came after the flood. These are some things we would need to add to the calculations. Being in a merged state also, gives us plenty to work in as well. Too bad science on this last one would not be up to the job, nevertheless, some believers ought to be able to have a bit of fun with what we do have here.

More pure speculation dad.

As to how the weather works now, I think a meteorologist would be the one to best answer that. It works how it works in this physical only world, of course, and we know what we know about it.

So your theory about the spirit separating from matter is useless here? Why? I can easily speculate, just as you do, regarding spirit separating from matter causing the weather. But here you abandon speculation, almost, and leave it up to the meteorologists. Why the inconsistency?

Not to forget the localized influence of the spiritual, which can be brought to bear, thereby tweaking the norm, or downright turning it on it's heels sometimes if need be as well!

And how do you determine this?

Actually, yes. If you understood what you were saying, of course, as the Almighty does. Were you there?

No. And neither were you.

Were you there when these words from the Bible were written?

Do you have any evidence there was no foundation laid for the earth?

No. And you have none that there was.

Were you there when these words from the Bible were written?

Do you know what and when these things God does and did were? I read in there that during creation He quelled stormy seas, because it was then the foundations were laid. (or was it? Do you know?)

Were you there when these words of the Bible were written?

But the other stuff, about how the unkind bozo thought the weather worked, and all, we have the word on that. The Almighty says "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?"

But exactly what was God complaining about? Was he complaining about Elihu’s knowledge or the fact that Elihu presumed to speak on his behalf?

Were you there when these words were written?


Let me get this straight dad. Because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?



Regards, Roland

 

[dad]

Gidday dad,




How do you know it? Where is your evidence?
[The bible tells us so. And science has nothing to say against it. It goes nicely with all evidence we do have as well.]



This is all pure speculation. Where is your evidence?
[If there was no canopy, how did the windows of heaven open, and drop water? Remember the bible is evidence, it works, and stands the test of time]



We know the world was wetter, drier, hotter, colder, had more O2, had less O2, was more temperate, was less temperate. It all depends on what period you take the evidence from and where you examine it. So exactly where are you going to take your data from such that you can say that the world was wetter and more temperate?
[They found an old cold blooded champsosaurus (crocodile) with a toad in it's belly to boot, up near the north pole, we know it was like the everglades. Now as far as the wetter bit, I don't know about that? It was lush, and abounding with life, and there was the mist, so things got watered, yes]



More pure speculation dad.
[Well, how did cold blooded creatures get near the pole if it was ice before the flood?!]


So your theory about the spirit separating from matter is useless here? Why? I can easily speculate, just as you do, regarding spirit separating from matter causing the weather. But here you abandon speculation, almost, and leave it up to the meteorologists. Why the inconsistency?
[Because it deals with the physical only world weather patterns. Why would I doubt that? Why would I doubt gravity? -Or all the rest we know about how our universe works? We live in a physical only world now.]


And how do you determine this?
[Because it happens around us every day in the form of heavenly help. It happened in the bible, in Jesus' day, and before, even after Peleg's day. Did you ever see a bush burn, and not be consumed? Spiritual was at work here, at least on the mountaintop!]



No. And neither were you.

Were you there when these words from the Bible were written?
[We can be there today, when He speaks, He is still alive and kicking, you know? But neither you or I in physical bodies were there then, of course not. I wasn't there when they built the lightswitch in my room either, or the power systems that supply it power, but I know it works. So does His word.]


But exactly what was God complaining about? Was he complaining about Elihu’s knowledge or the fact that Elihu presumed to speak on his behalf?

Were you there when these words were written? [In the spirit we can be there, and catch the spirit of what is written, rather than the dead words alone. Now what exactly was the Almighty brushing off the dolt for? Well, why not ask Him, and find out yourself?]


Let me get this straight dad. Because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?

[Neither you nor anyone else was there to see the early big bang creator speck either, not the magically appearing first lifeform! Some real people witnesses the ressurection, and wrote about it in the bible. Just because the OT seems a little further away to you, doesn't mean it isn't bang on.]

Regards, Roland

.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Notice the 'science' on the end there!

Um, yes, from the Latin word scio, meaning "to know."
Your point?

He is all knowing yes, but operates on earth according to the rules He set up, and the name of the game here is free will! Just cause He knows, doesn't make Him some Omnimonster!

Of course we have Free Will, but isn't it a moot point?
We are of course free to make any choice we want, but God already knows which choice we will make, and would've planned accordingly.

Playing by His own rules doesn't mean flying blind...

About many things, of course, why not? But not about His word.

Is that one of His rules, or yours?

Ha. Well, men have got Him to stay His Hand of judgements. Men have got Him to change weather.

Men asked, God responded, exactly as He was going to anyway as part of His divine plan.

Noah could have prayed for a safe voyage, but would not have been able to successfully ask for no flood. WE'll just have to disagree about all this predestination stuff.

Too bad. I have a feeling that it's important somehow...

Not the speed of light. No. The speed it did travel in a merged universe, yes.

So... did "merged" light travel faster or slower, and how much?
How does the splitting of the physical and spiritual affect the speed of light?
How can we determine this, and what effect does it have on our calcualtions?

Not the rate of decay now, no. The lack of decay process in the merge, yes.

Ok, so does merged material decay faster or slower than the stuff we see around us?

Not the speed continental plates now trave, no, this is fine. The speed at which they may have travelled in a merge situation, with the spiritual elements working together with the physical, yes.

So, do the spiritual elements push the physical along faster, or slow it down?


Would you be able to answer any of these questions if you weren't already committed to a preconceived conclusion?


Etc. Basically anywhere they try to leave the box!! [/QUOTE]

You mean whatever it takes to arrive at your conclusion, don't you?

Halelujah! At last.

Nothing much in our present world at all! Everything in one imagined long ago, or in the future.

So... any attempt to use physical-only science on the subject of origins is more or less useless, because it does not take the merge into account.

Well then, let's split the difference: You should at least have no difficulty determining exactly when the split took place; "Box" science should work well up until that point...

The box is the physical only. Outside of these limitations, of course we don't have physical only! We have value added-the spiritual.

Fine, let's add the spiritual into the equation in some kind of useful form.

Now, you do realize that "Some kind of useful form" does not involve talking a literal reading of the Bible and proclaiming "The Spiritual made it all happen exactly like this!"

Even us "Box" thinkers are going to need something a little more substantial, and a lot less convenient for your position.

It doesn't a bit, it just opens men's understanding to what really went on!

How so?

There was a Garden of Eden with the spiritual, and a creation,

The Spiritual tells you this?

and we simply veiw the record in it's proper context,

Meaning your own context.

that of a creation and migration of life, rather than imagined long ages,

totally unknowable ages, since the spiritual has tainted the physical record.

an erased God, and a lifeform appearing from they know not where, or how, to produce all life!

Why are you erasing God? I doubt He'd take kindly to that... you might actually "force" Him to do something about it.

 

[dad]

Notice the 'science' on the end there!

Um, yes, from the Latin word scio, meaning "to know."
Your point?


That that is what science is, knowledge-not just physical knowledge alone.

Is that one of His rules, or yours?

His

So... did "merged" light travel faster or slower, and how much?
How does the splitting of the physical and spiritual affect the speed of light?
How can we determine this, and what effect does it have on our calcualtions?

Does an angel or God travel faster than a man? So to does merged light. When it was left only as a physical universe, our light was limited to it's present speed, in that it was the only form of light left here. Since we are lomited also by time, it may be connected. We can determine this by obseving recorded traveling of spiritual beings. God has a route from one end of the universe to the other, it doesn't take Him billions of years. So our calculations of present light speed are correct, I have no reason to doubt. Trying to project this on the far past, of course, is not on at all.

So, do the spiritual elements push the physical along faster, or slow it down?

They were merged, so if anything got pushed, it would be the both. This could have been done quickly. The merged universe is more in tune with God's will. Remember, He spoke, and things happened!

You should at least have no difficulty determining exactly when the split took place; "Box" science should work well up until that point...

I don't have too much difficulty. His word is a treasure trove of clues, treasures new and old! But how could old poor cousin physical only tell us this? If they can, why, great, go to it. Since they know not what the spiritual is, I don't see how they can tell when it went missing!?

Fine, let's add the spiritual into the equation in some kind of useful form

Kind of hard to add it in now that we are in a physical only universe. Locally, by prayer and such, yes, of course.

It doesn't a bit, it just opens men's understanding to what really went on!


How so?

It explains how a garden could grow so fast, how the bible is actually a true account, and the flood, etc. It clinches the orgins debate.

totally unknowable ages, since the spiritual has tainted the physical record.

We can know the ages, and do, also by the spiritual book, written by a Spirit, and physical men! No wonder it's hot! It's the only merged remnant man has!
No wonder it works still.

 

[Jet Black]

what has this got to do with whale evolution? please stop derailing the threads

 

[dad]

what has this got to do with whale evolution? please stop derailing the threads

Hey, they were your questions i tried to answer! Don't blame me if you get off track so easy!

 

[Nathan Poe]

That that is what science is, knowledge-not just physical knowledge alone.

So you say, but living in a post-split world, we're stuck in a physical world. How then do we know, categorize, and measure what you have already admitted is no longer a part of our experience?

His

As interpreted by you...

Does an angel or God travel faster than a man? So to does merged light.

Does an angel have a physical form to slow it down?

Does God travel at all? I thought he was omnipresent. How long does it take for God to go from where He is to where He is not?

When it was left only as a physical universe, our light was limited to it's present speed, in that it was the only form of light left here.

So what exactly is "spiritual light?" Is it sentient? Did it want to go faster?

Since we are lomited also by time, it may be connected.

How are we "limited" by time?

We can determine this by obseving recorded traveling of spiritual beings. God has a route from one end of the universe to the other, it doesn't take Him billions of years.

You have God's itenerary on file? Does he map out a flight plan like a 747 out of O'Hare Airport? Is he ever behind schedule? Does He ever take a detour?

Do you have any idea how ludicrous you sound saddling your spiritual world with physical limitations?

So our calculations of present light speed are correct, I have no reason to doubt. Trying to project this on the far past, of course, is not on at all.

Because it doesn't give you the results you like.

They were merged, so if anything got pushed, it would be the both. This could have been done quickly. The merged universe is more in tune with God's will. Remember, He spoke, and things happened!

Could have, but why should we believe it did?

I don't have too much difficulty. His word is a treasure trove of clues, treasures new and old! But how could old poor cousin physical only tell us this? If they can, why, great, go to it. Since they know not what the spiritual is, I don't see how they can tell when it went missing!?

Because they are at least honest enough to say "I don't know...but we're working on it."
Try it sometime, it's very refreshing.

Kind of hard to add it in now that we are in a physical only universe. Locally, by prayer and such, yes, of course.

Of course. So your physical+spiritual science is more or less impossible to apply... thus rendering it utterly useless.

It explains how a garden could grow so fast, how the bible is actually a true account, and the flood, etc. It clinches the orgins debate.

Of course it does. "Goddidit."

Sorry dad, but you're not the first person to come up with that theory.

We can know the ages, and do, also by the spiritual book, written by a Spirit, and physical men! No wonder it's hot! It's the only merged remnant man has!

So is every published Bible merged, or do you need a special copy?
Because I have one of those magical merged books here, and it behaves exactly like all my others. All the limitations of the physical world seem to affect it: Gravity, solidity, decay (the pages are starting to turn yellow), so it's actually refuting your whole hypothesis as you speak: the physical seems to behave pretty much the same with or without the spiritual attached.
No wonder it works still.[/QUOTE]

 

[Nathan Poe]

what has this got to do with whale evolution? please stop derailing the threads

I do apologize, Jet, but this is just too much fun. Dad might finally be starting to see how utterly worthless "spiritual science" is.

 

[USincognito]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1232858-no-tranistionals-the-whales.html

You know, every time I wonder if the Creationists aren't reading the availible scientific information, much less the most recent or relevant threads on certain topics - I see threads like the OP which prove me right.

 

[dad]

I do apologize, Jet, but this is just too much fun. Dad might finally be starting to see how utterly worthless "spiritual science" is.

No, I don't think it is fair to get too far afield on threads not about that. I can't help but bring it up now and then, but no need to purposely try to take over a thread with side issues. I guess I'll start a thread called 'spiritual science' for that topic. To summarize for this thread, God made lots of creatures, and similar bones, and things do not indicate evolution, themselves. Also, if it could be shown there was some changes, the merged world could give us those in a New York Minute as well.

 

[rjw]

Hello Dad,

How do you know it? Where is your evidence?

The bible tells us so.

Dad, this is not evidence. Darwin told us that evolution happens. Therefore evolution happens?

This is all pure speculation. Where is your evidence?

If there was no canopy, how did the windows of heaven open, and drop water? Remember the bible is evidence, it works, and stands the test of time.

There was no great Flood. There is no evidence for it – despite what people may have believed over the centuries. It has only been in the last 200 years that we have had the tools to ask the question – “Did the great Flood occur?” - and the answer is a firm “No”.

(Many people used to believe that the earth was flat and many used the Bible as evidence. Therefore the earth must be flat?)

No Flood -> No canopy.

We know the world was wetter, drier, hotter, colder, had more O2, had less O2, was more temperate, was less temperate. It all depends on what period you take the evidence from and where you examine it. So exactly where are you going to take your data from such that you can say that the world was wetter and more temperate?

They found an old cold blooded champsosaurus (crocodile) with a toad in it's belly to boot, up near the north pole, we know it was like the everglades. Now as far as the wetter bit, I don't know about that? It was lush, and abounding with life, and there was the mist, so things got watered, yes …
Well, how did cold blooded creatures get near the pole if it was ice before the flood?!

This is my point exactly dad. Not only have they found this, but all over the world they find evidence for successive and varying climatic types. Thus from any geological column drilled deeply enough you will find evidence for something like hotter climates, then colder ones, then wetter ones, then volcanic ones, then hotter and drier, or hotter and wetter, then more volcanic, then windy, then oceanic, then desert ….. Get a geology book and open it up to a discussion on geologic columns!

What you have done is chosen just one or two data points and claimed that this represents the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago. Well these data points do not represent the whole world at one particular time some 4500 years ago.

It is as if you stuck your head out of your window and noted that it was a warm summer’s night and concluded that it is a warm summer’s night over the whole world for the past 100 years.

Let me get this straight dad. Because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?

Neither you nor anyone else was there to see the early big bang creator speck either, not the magically appearing first lifeform! Some real people witnesses the ressurection, and wrote about it in the bible. Just because the OT seems a little further away to you, doesn't mean it isn't bang on.

Dad, you did not answer my question.

I am not arguing that we were there to see the BB or the origin of life. We have physical evidence for the Big Bang. As for the origin of life, we assume it occurred naturalistically and attempt, using the scientific method, to understand how this could have happened – physically.

Ditto with the evolution of the whale. We have physical evidence that this did happen - from mesonychids or artiodoctyls to whales. The physical evidence we have are bones, molecules, and physiology. So we attempt to understand how this could have happened - physically. This is how we behave in all science.

Who saw the resurrection?

Certainly many people claimed to have seen Jesus after his death. However, I gather that seeing people after their deaths was not unique to some people with respect to Jesus. Nor do I gather was the writing down of these experiences unique to Jesus.

If you think that I have argued that the Big Bang happened or that life originated naturalistically and these ideas must be correct because you were not there to see otherwise, then tell me where I have argued in this manner.

I can certainly point you to places where you have argued in this manner. That is why I asked the question.

So, because neither you nor I were there in the past, you say that your ideas are correct, because I was not there to see that they could not be correct? Is this the essence of your argument?




Regards, Roland