I don't believe it is in the slightest bit unreasonable for there to be gaps in the fossil record. It is totally expected, given the nature of fossilisation.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.
Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.
Neither do I.I don't believe it is in the slightest bit unreasonable for there to be gaps in the fossil record.
Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.It is totally expected, given the nature of fossilisation.
He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.
Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.
That He killed in the Deluge?Are those coccospheres the ones that God swept up into a nice neat pile after The Flood from the millions of coccolithophores He killed in The Deluge? I thought marine species didn't die in The Flood?? Hmmmm......
While we don't ever expect to have all of the steps, today we do have all of the major steps in animal evolution. That is, there are no glaring gaps between birds and dinosaurs, mammals and reptiles, reptiles and amphibians, amphibians and fish, etc.He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.
That He killed in the Deluge?
I don't know -- are they?
Neither do I.
Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.
He also said we have 'all the steps', and we don't have 'all the steps'.
Talk about "god-of-the-gaps" -- evolution has more gaps than the White Cliffs of Dover has coccospheres.
Science is just a method to help describe reality and how the universe works. When you debate against science you really debate against reality which is both foolish and nonproductive.
Well, just see the theological arguments here revolving around the trinity. The claim is that the apparently contradictory language is not actually contradictory by some mysterious, unknown mechanism.
By the line of reasoning used here, one can admit any sort of contradiction at all into theology.
Not at all. Peer-review is a quality control check on publications before they are published. It weeds out papers that don't meet minimum standards.
"Formed" and "created" are two concepts that are quite distinguishable in Genesis 1.
Knowing the difference between creatio ex nihilo, creatio ex materia and formed helps to understand what happened (and what didn't happen).
I'm not sure what you mean here. The doctrine of the trinity does not appear in the Bible. It can potentially be inferred, but in any case it isn't directly in the Greek at all.Neither mysterious nor unknown. We know what the original Greek words meant. They don't have one-word equivalents in English, just like "simpatico" doesn't, but we still know what they meant. And that's the point: in English Trinity is apparently contradictory, but that is only an appearance. It's not really contradictory, especially not in Greek.
I don't think there is any sense in attempting to find a consensus of Christian theology. I'm not sure any such thing exists (if you think there is, you're going to have a hard time explaining the multiple denominations). The fact remains that there is definitely a branch of Christian theology that explicitly argues that contradictory language isn't a problem, and when you attempt to argue that, you're separating yourself completely from any sort of reality, and are just turning inwards to your own beliefs.The essays are from 1859 and from one minister. As such, they don't represent the consensus of Christian theology anymore than Robert Chambers represents the scientific consensus about evolution. I don't think you really read the article. The article is addressing 2 very specific claims about the Bible: it is infallible and it was dictated by God. This is summed in the question: "Must we thus divest the language of all truth to save the infallibility of the writers -- destroy the revelation to preserve the divine authority?"
I'm not so sure this is very sensible, however, because different theists have decided that different theologies are false. True, some theologies have fallen out of fashion and are no longer around. But there are other theologies that are so blatantly opposed to reason and evidence that it is amazing they continue (young Earth creationism, for instance). Sure, there are theists who consider these things false, but again, I don't see anything close to a consensus among theologians. I just see a lot of people with different opinions and no way to come to any sort of agreement.That is not the case, and isn't even the case argued by Dr. Taylor. All you have to do is look at the theologies that theists have decided are false. So yes, you can disprove some theologies. The issue is whether Christianity has been disproved.
CHAPTER ONE
You hold in your hand a rock known as, let's call it, Dalite.
This Dalite emits one particle called a Dalon every year on January 1.
Analysis shows that the Dalite you're holding has 10 particles of Dalon embedded in it.
CHAPTER TWO
Absolutely without fail, observation shows that every time Dalite is formed (keyword: formed), it always forms with 100,000 Dalons embedded --- irregardless of the size of the rock.
CHAPTER THREE
Chris T. Ian claims that, according to The Book, this universe has only been in existence for 100 years, and the following converstion ensues:
YOU: Not so --- I have a Dalite rock with only 10 Dalons left. This is evidence that this rock is 999,990 years old.
CHRIS: Not so --- when God created (keyword: created) Dalite, He must have created it with only 110 Dalons (embedded age); but when it forms, it forms with a process that embeds 100,000 Dalons into it.
QUESTION
Would you be willing to admit that your evidence is inconclusive?
Jumping in a bit late here, I know, but what does Chris T. Ian know that makes all my research on Dalite inconclusive?
Neither do I.
Then don't tell me we worship a god-of-the-gaps, when evolution's god is bigger.
Goddess, actually.evolution has a god now?
And made a point doing it too!A margarine commercial! Congratulations AV1611VET, you have plumbed new depths of the ridiculous!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?