Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Many without God in their world do not walk and yield to God at work in many among us.

View attachment 243694

Does this apply to those promoting evolution?

When He is at work within, we can see natural processes is not the only way to interpret and see unearthed items by.

The fossil record does not show evolution happened. It shows creation of creatures that only have variations of themselves.

Macro-evolution never happened, as so many godless-people have organized fossil macro-assemblages to show.

View attachment 243695

This is what I clearly see on CF. Those who promote evolution occurred are without God active in this world, only natural processes. Is this not so?

So you're just here to preach. Got it.
/End of thread.

 

[Heissonear]

Equating the theory of evolution with atheism.... utter garbage.

Bases of interpretation is the focus.

If those who live life without a God in this world, only accept what natural processes produce, then what will they interpret from the fossil record?

They will promote evolution, even on conjecture-based evidence.

Look at the viewpoint, and see the obvious.

 

[Heissonear]

Equating the theory of evolution with atheism.... utter garbage.

You forgot to defend against what the fossil record actually shows: a bunch of different creatures and variations of those creatures.

Different creatures that can be mistaken and wrongly interpreted:

And variations of the same kind wrongly interpreted as different creatures:

This is what "only natural processes" interpretation can lead to. Errant claims and conclusions based on conjecture.

 

[Jimmy D]

Bases of interpretation is the focus.

If those who live life without a God in this world, only accept what natural processes produce, then what will they interpret from the fossil record?

They will promote evolution, even on conjecture-based evidence.

Look at the viewpoint, and see the obvious.

They’ll probably interpret it as most Christians and atheists do, as demonstrating a very old earth and the fact that life has been constantly evolving.

 

[Jimmy D]

You forgot to defend against what the fossil record actually shows: a bunch of different creatures and variations of those creatures.

Different creatures that can be mistaken and wrongly interpreted:
View attachment 243697

And variations of the same kind wrongly interpreted as different creatures:
View attachment 243698
View attachment 243699


This is what "only natural processes" interpretation can lead to. Errant claims and conclusions based on conjecture.

I don’t need to defend against amateurish crackpot ideas.

What do you think these posts of yours are going to achieve exactly? If it’s your aim to make creationists look ignorant and foolish I wouldn’t want to stand in your way.

 

[xianghua]

Care to give me an example of this? Not that I'm arguing the point, I just want to see an example.

the liger for instance:

Liger - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You forgot to defend against what the fossil record actually shows: a bunch of different creatures and variations of those creatures.

Different creatures that can be mistaken and wrongly interpreted:
View attachment 243697

And variations of the same kind wrongly interpreted as different creatures:
View attachment 243698
View attachment 243699


This is what "only natural processes" interpretation can lead to. Errant claims and conclusions based on conjecture.

Yes, it leads to wrongly interpreting the data.

it leads to believing those are all separate species when in reality they are all one species, just as these are one species.....

But what can we expect when they see birds producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses and refuse to correct past mistakes....... So it is not surprising they incorrectly classify things in the past they never observed alive, they can't even get right what they do observe alive.....

 

[xianghua]

For example in the below, plain to see different creatures but could induce false conclusions.

View attachment 243688

what is the name of the guy in the right image?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

what is the name of the guy in the right image?

Nikolai Valuev. Russian former boxer and Russian politician. 7 feet tall and had a peak weight of 328 pounds (149 kilos).

 

[xianghua]

Nikolai Valuev. Russian former boxer and Russian politician. 7 feet tall and had a peak weight of 328 pounds (149 kilos).

thanks.

 

[Kylie]

Kind = Genus

So are you saying that God made different kinds based on the taxonomic system he knew humans would one day invent? Or are you saying that the human system of taxonomy just somehow coincidentally matches with the kind system that God came up with?

And what if new genetic evidence prompts two genuses to be merged into one genus? Does that do some kind of time travel rewrite of history, changing the past so that God created one less kind?

You might wanna rethink your idea. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Kylie]

the liger for instance:

Liger - Wikipedia

True, the female ligers are fertile, but the males are not. So you can't exactly have a breeding population of ligers, can you? Two ligers can't produce offspring with each other. You can only really have a female liger and a male lion or a male tiger.

Again, this is exactly what we'd expect with evolution. As lions and tigers diverge evolutionarily, breeding them becomes more and more problematic.

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you saying that God made different kinds based on the taxonomic system he knew humans would one day invent?

I'm saying:

1. God made different kinds.

2. Man changed "kind" to "genus".

3. And in so doing, began making mistakes: the biggest one is including mankind in with the animals.

God's kinds and man's kinds are out of sync.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And what if new genetic evidence prompts two genuses to be merged into one genus? Does that do some kind of time travel rewrite of history, changing the past so that God created one less kind?

You might wanna rethink your idea. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

No, that would just be more of the human prone error like watching birds produce fertile offspring right in front of their noses but refusing to correct their incorrect classifications.....

What doesn't hold up to scrutiny is their current classifications.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm saying:

1. God made different kinds.

2. Man changed "kind" to "genus".

3. And in so doing, began making mistakes: the biggest one is including mankind in with the animals.

God's kinds and man's kinds are out of sync.

Not in all cases. In some cases they left the Kind at the species level. For example their are many Kind in the genus Aves. As well as the genus melanoplus as just a couple examples.....

"the kite, and any kind of falcon; every kind of raven; the ostrich, the night hawk, the gull, and any kind of hawk;…

"Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind."

So man's genus classification is also not in sync with Kind.....

 

[AV1611VET]

So man's genus classification is also not in sync with Kind.....

To err is human -- to really foul things up takes a scientist.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

To err is human -- to really foul things up takes a scientist.

No, don't blame scientists. They got us electricity and cars, and computers. It's the evolutionary taxonomists that really foul things up..... they classify according to their belief, not reality.....

I take offense that people keep blaming scientists for evolutionists errors..... as if science had anything to do with evolution....

 

[AV1611VET]

No, don't blame scientists. They got us electricity and cars, and computers.

I'm not bribed easily.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not bribed easily.

Not a single scientist ever classified Lions and Tigers as separate species....

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a single scientist ever classified Lions and Tigers as separate species....

Then who classified the lion as "leo" and the tiger as "tigris"?

Harold Cook?