God used Evolution to create man

[DogmaHunter]

Two things.

1) Small changes over time has never been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor.

2) The viewpoint that only naturalistic mechanisms have been shown to produce a banana and a human from the same common ancestor has absolutely no support.

Neither of these points are claims that I made. Try responding to my actual post if you wish to respond.

 

[JacksBratt]

You don't have to know the origins of something to gain an understanding of how it works.

You do if the origin is based on the same theoretical process that the whole belief is founded on. You believe that life evolved over huge exspance of time. That it was not created. It just happened, un designed. Yet you cannot explain how it, un designed and un created, started in the first place. The first paragraph of any essay is the hardest, however it is the most necessary.

Jacksbratt said..."Are you saying that paranormal events, ghosts, intelligent life from other dimensions, demonic activity is not a fact?"
​

Correct.

You need to get out more.

 

[JacksBratt]

We don't need to explain the origins of things that aren't even demonstrated to exist.

More and more these things are being brought to the front and are demanding to be seen as the facts and actual occurrences that they are.

 

[JacksBratt]

If you watch a construction site for 5 minutes and don't see a new building appear, do you doubt the ability of man to build buildings?



And you have pulled out all of the fossils from the ground? The transitional species Tiktaalik took 3 years to find, and that was just one species. Why do you expect us to have thousands of transitional species when we have searched such a tiny, tiny portion of the fossil record?

What you do ignore is that every fossil we have found supports evolution. All of the transitionals fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. Why do you ask for more transitionals when you ignore the ones we do have?



If a lineage is well adapted there is no reason for it to change.

None of the fossils support evolution. Every fossil proves one thing, that that organism existed and was covered with sediment to preserve it at that moment of time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is that evolution, based on "The origin of the species" can't even explain the origin of the life that is necessary for the species, how is it going to explain the origin of the spiritual realm as well.

I guess denying the existence of a spiritual realm or another dimension would solve that though.

The origin of species and the origin of life are two distinctly different questions. In fact, they are even different scientific fields.

As foe your spiritual realm.... You'ld first have to demonstrate it actually exists before asking about its origins. We would need to study it to be able to answer the question. We can't study the undetectable or the undemonstrable...

 

[DogmaHunter]

None of the fossils support evolution. Every fossil proves one thing, that that organism existed and was covered with sediment to preserve it at that moment of time.

Yeah, just like a body with a knife sticking out the back is not evidence of murder, but just of a human that lived and then died of unkown causes.

Or, you could try not engaging in juvenile intellectual dishonesty...

 

[JacksBratt]

Evolution IS a science.

It is not "a" science" it is a hoax using scewed data to eeak out some sort of explanation for it's lie.

It's safe because "science doesn't prove anything"

The last few hundred years has seen a rift between science and bible literalists growing larger by the year, so good luck with that idea.

And still no proof or transition between species. Darwin's own words state that this will be the biggest problem in the proof of the lie called a "theory".

Agreed, creationists use science in devious ways to advocate their nonsense to the vulnerable, gullible and the uneducated

The promoters of Evolution have the hoaxes of the embryos, piltown man and lucy as well as others to show that evolution is based on devious ways to advocate it's nonsense.

Evolution has never attempted to explain the origin of life, it's not meant to, that is a completely different discipline.

Exactly, you tell us how we got the cow but can't tell us what makes it "alive". Then you ignore this one little hiccup of how it began to carry on the farce of the steps it took to get to the endpoint.

You have no beginning and no proof of the steps between the beginning and the end. Just assumptions and guesses of the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not "a" science" it is a hoax using scewed data to eeak out some sort of explanation for it's lie.

What data is skewed?

And still no proof or transition between species.

Found them for you:

Darwin's own words state that this will be the biggest problem in the proof of the lie called a "theory".

Just as David's own words say that there is no God.

"There is no God"--Psalms 49:1

The promoters of Evolution have the hoaxes of the embryos, piltown man and lucy as well as others to show that evolution is based on devious ways to advocate it's nonsense.

The only deviousness is your refusal to deal with the evidence.

You have no beginning and no proof of the steps between the beginning and the end. Just assumptions and guesses of the past.

Again, you ignore the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

None of the fossils support evolution. Every fossil proves one thing, that that organism existed and was covered with sediment to preserve it at that moment of time.

Why don't the fossils support evolution?

All you have is just flat denial? You can't deal with the morphology, or testable criteria for determining if a fossil is transitional or not? Just plug your ears, cover your eyes, and yell "LALALALA" over and over? That's it?

 

[JacksBratt]

Yeah, just like a body with a knife sticking out the back is not evidence of murder, but just of a human that lived and then died of unkown causes.

Or, you could try not engaging in juvenile intellectual dishonesty...

Do you have a fossil of any transitional stages from ape to human?

Real ones, not those filed and puzzled and pieced together, presented as a model that is a hoax to base this farce of a theory on?

Do you have any transitional fossils, that should be everywhere due to the billions of years that this whole thing took place? Billions of years, numerous changes from fish to lizard to dog, to cat, bird, cow, tiger... and the innumerable amounts of stages between each that would be necessary to achieve the multiple end resultant animals? Yet, all you have is repeat after repeat of certain stages.. that is all...no, transitions. Even Darwin, in his life time, stated that this was a huge problem. He hoped time would show more but never have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a fossil of any transitional stages from ape to human?

Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls

that should be everywhere due to the billions of years that this whole thing took place?

If you had actually read "Origin of Species" you would know that they should not be everywhere due to the imperfection of the geologic record.

The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

Darwin wrote an entire chapter describing how the geologic record would not be capable of capturing such fine graded transitionals with any regularity.

Yet, all you have is repeat after repeat of certain stages.. that is all...no, transitions.

Found them for you.

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Darwin, in his life time, stated that this was a huge problem. He hoped time would show more but never have.

Have you even read "Origin of Species", or have you only read the quote mines that dishonest creationists use?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I realize using words like "magic" when speaking of how God created His creation is to elicit certain emotional reactions, but to ask for evidence that a pine tree and a whale has the same common ancestor, and evidence they were created by only naturalistic mechanisms isn't worded to elicit emotional reactions. It's a valid request.

Granted, the responses to the request is usually one of mockery from those who hold to the faith based view of creation by only naturalistic mechanisms.

That would be because the ancestry between those two things is so distant that when you got to their last common ancestor you wouldn't recognize it as having really much in the way of traits of either modern species.

 

[justlookinla]

That would be because the ancestry between those two things is so distant that when you got to their last common ancestor you wouldn't recognize it as having really much in the way of traits of either modern species.

Guesses and suppositions.

 

[Dizredux]

PsychoSarah

That would be because the ancestry between those two things is so distant that when you got to their last coon ancestor you wouldn't recognize it as having really much in the way of traits of either modern species.

Just

Guesses and suppositions.

My question is since you know very little about either the science or the evidence, how do you come to the conclusion that this is "guesses and suppositions"?

I am really curious about how how you come to conclusions about things of which you know virtually nothing.

Inquiring minds and all of that.


Dizredux

 

[bhsmte]

PsychoSarah

​

Just My question is since you know very little about either the science or the evidence, how do you come to the conclusion that this is "guesses and suppositions"?

I am really curious about how how you come to conclusions about things of which you know virtually nothing.

Inquiring minds and all of that.


Dizredux

He needs it to be guesses and suppositions. Having actual objective evidence of the same, is too scary a thought to contemplate.

 

[justlookinla]

PsychoSarah

​

Just My question is since you know very little about either the science or the evidence, how do you come to the conclusion that this is "guesses and suppositions"?

I am really curious about how how you come to conclusions about things of which you know virtually nothing.

Inquiring minds and all of that.


Dizredux

Shucks, maybe someone could learn me something about a single life form becoming a human....and a pine tree.

Do you know enough to try?

 

[justlookinla]

He needs it to be guesses and suppositions. Having actual objective evidence of the same, is too scary a thought to contemplate.

Start with the first life form and go.

 

[Dizredux]

Shucks, maybe someone could learn me something about a single life form becoming a human....and a pine tree.

Do you know enough to try?

I noticed that you did not attempt to answer my questions. Rather par for the course.

As to your question, it has happened many times with humans except in the case of Jesus and the virgin birth.

Dizredux

 

[Dizredux]

Start with the first life form and go.

Mmmmm stepping into this, start with either Adam and Eve or even Moses and tell me the names of all of your ancestors leading up to you.

Yours is the kind of question that comes from people with little or no knowledge of biology and how it is done. Sad.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

I noticed that you did not attempt to answer my questions. Rather par for the course.

As to your question, it has happened many times with humans except in the case of Jesus and the virgin birth.

Dizredux

Happened many times? We are talking about the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced a human and a pine tree from a single life form from long long ago, aren't we? Are you convinced of that viewpoint, and if so, why? If not, why not?

As far as answering your question, when 'maybes', 'could be's and 'we don't know for sure' pepper a particular viewpoint, that's a pretty good indication that guesses and suppositions form the basis for the particular viewpoint.