Life evolved. Deal with it.

[Speedwell]

The only way you could ever hope to understand the scriptures is to accept His sacrifice in your place and to be forgiven of your sins and to have His Spirit dwell in you as well. As an atheist, you are missing so much. It's a completely different paradigm.

In other words, if you don't accept biblical literalism you aren't really a Christian?

 

[HitchSlap]

Still not seeing those fossils

Then you're not looking in the right places.

 

[pitabread]

Still not seeing those fossils

Have you tried Google? I hear it's a great way to find information in this day and age.

 

[PropheticTimes]

Then you're not looking in the right places.

Then please, point me to them.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree, it's based on much worse.

Well, the reality of the situation is considered by some to be worse than wish thinking.

 

[PropheticTimes]

Have you tried Google? I hear it's a great way to find information in this day and age.

Not there either...because they don't exist..... it's okay sweetie, even if you have to wear a helmet that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to ride a bike

 

[HitchSlap]

Then please, point me to them.

Not my job, skippy.

 

[HitchSlap]

Not there either...because they don't exist..... it's okay sweetie, even if you have to wear a helmet that doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to ride a bike

A question I love to ask of evolution newbie's; Was Dr. Shubin just lucky, or did he effectively use ToE to predict where he might find T. roseae?

 

[Divide]

Still not seeing those fossils

Ok. I didn't read this entire thread, but now I see where it's at from your post. I've seen this thread before on other boards. The fossils, lol

Have they been able to answer the big evolution question yet? The one that says...ok the body will mutate to adapt...so the question is...where did the new information come from, that will be required for the design and execution of the new needed improvements?

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, but that has not changed my view on the flood. Perhaps you did not read his quote in contex. It reads:

Well, chuckles, you got yourself a problem there. There are a lot of claims in the bible that have been "usurped" by competent humans. This is just one of them. You seem to be fine with the others. Why is this one so different? The bible has been wrong about so many things, why do you accept those and not this?
​

This would suggest that there is some sort of belief that has been defined by men that I take no issue with. The flood would not be an example of this.

You asked for an example implying there were none.

You said you would wait until one was supplied.

I supplied one.

The end.

 

[JackRT]

I wouldn't call such people Bible scholars.

In my experience there are two sorts of bible scholars. The first sort is open minded and has the courage to follow truth where ever truth might lead even if it risks established understandings. The second is the apologetic scholar who seeks only to prove established understandings and will vehemently reject any scholarship which does. BTW, I received an award for apologetics over 50 years ago. To be honest, I feel some shame over that.

 

[HitchSlap]

Ok. I didn't read this entire thread, but now I see where it's at from your post. I've seen this thread before on other boards. The fossils, lol

Have they been able to answer the big evolution question yet? The one that says...ok the body will mutate to adapt...so the question is...where did the new information come from, that will be required for the design and execution of the new needed improvements?

Genetic recombination, my creationist friend.

 

[PropheticTimes]

Not my job, skippy.

Because there aren't any LOL

 

[SeventyOne]

In other words, if you don't accept biblical literalism you aren't really a Christian?

You didn't read it very well. If one is able to persist in a lie without conviction, there's a very good chance they are not.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok. I didn't read this entire thread, but now I see where it's at from your post. I've seen this thread before on other boards. The fossils, lol

Have they been able to answer the big evolution question yet? The one that says...ok the body will mutate to adapt...so the question is...where did the new information come from, that will be required for the design and execution of the new needed improvements?

Not a problem--the mechanism is well understood: Natural selection depletes the information content of the gene pool and random variation increases it.

 

[Larniavc]

Not one kangaroo turning into a chicken.

Why would there be? That would disprove ToE is a shot.

If you think a kangaroo turning into a chicken has anything to do with what ToE predicts you are mistaken.

I challenge you to show where ToE predicts this.

 

[pitabread]

Not there either...because they don't exist.....

You keep on believing.

Though any who says something like "Not one kangaroo turning into a chicken." is not in the best position to pass judgement on the biological sciences.

FWIW, the ToE isn't really dependent on fossils (although certainly how it started, given that life in the past was clearly different that modern life). But the genetic evidence alone is overwhelming.

Then there's the pesky fact that the ToE is an applied science in various fields of biology. That's something that doesn't appear to be going away any time soon and will ensure it's part of biology curricula for generations to come...

 

[HereIStand]

... sigh...

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

You need to get out more.

Sorry. To believe that the eye, and the rest of us, evolved by natural selection due to changes in our environment is absurd. This, like the rest of natural selection, is mathematically impossible. The amount of adaptive changes needed to randomly generate even the most simple eye, let alone the human eye, are beyond astronomical.

 

[SeventyOne]

In my experience there are two sorts of bible scholars. The first sort is open minded and has the courage to follow truth where ever truth might lead even if it risks established understandings. The second is the apologetic scholar who seeks only to prove established understandings and will vehemently reject any scholarship which does. BTW, I received an award for apologetics over 50 years ago. To be honest, I feel some shame over that.

What about the one who seeks to deny the truth of scripture by attempting to undermine its foundations?

 

[Speedwell]

What about the one who seeks to deny the truth of scripture by attempting to undermine its foundations?

You're the one who is going to have to answer for that.