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.
That's never made sense to me. Doesn't it mean God is intentionally designing bacteria to be resistant to our antibiotics? Or in classic predator/prey evolutionary arms races, is that God designing things to counter His other designs?That there is no explanation for the universe being started other than unlimited necessary existence that is eternal and showing intelligence and caring, which would rightly be called God, means that there is such involvement with design even in any evolution happening.
Regardless...
You are with those who argue against God being relevant to anything about evolution. That there is no explanation for the universe being started other than unlimited necessary existence that is eternal and showing intelligence and caring, which would rightly be called God, means that there is such involvement with design even in any evolution happening. Atheism does not have an answer for that, with any logic. What I posted is an answer that can be given, so if I can't have a thought out answer to the original question about placement of animals, so what? It is really smaller potatoes.
If it desired that I just make guesses to explain placement of animals for being considered relevant I could do so, but why should that be? Are guesses really wanted? There is no vested interest there.
The simple answer to the question is that Noah's flood was regional or local. As opposed to global.Patterns of animal distribution were one of the principal evidences that inspired Darwin to formulate the Theory of Evolution. Biogeogaphy is not only observable evidence for evolution but also poses grave difficulty for the Noachian paradigm. I assert that these patterns are irreconcilable with, and therefore observable evidence against, the historicity of the story of Noah. For example;
Australian mammals are almost exclusively marsupials found nowhere else on earth. These marsupials are extremely varied in terms of morphology and the ecological niches they inhabit, species as varied as marsupial "mice" "moles" "wolves" "bears""squirrels" "tigers" and various marsupial grazers, carnivores, tree dwellers and burrowers.
The usual question raised is "how did they get from the Ark to Australia" I find this a most uninteresting query which misses a more profound point;
Why were almost all the many varied mammals, that found their way from the Ark to Australia, marsupials? and why did no placental mammals succeed in joining them, and why did most all of theses marsupial species not succeed anywhere else?
Why did no mice, moles, bears, squirrels,tigers,goats, sheep, lions, cattle, monkeys, antelope, dogs, etc mammals found all over the rest of the world find their way there?
Moreover, when placentals are introduced by man, they thrive; introduced mice, rats, dogs, camels, horses, goats, rabbits etc, all do very well.
Similar patterns of endemic species are found elsewhere, most notably Madagascar.
I assert that these particular, observable non-random patterns of distribution are irreconcilable within a Noachian paradigm?
Can any creationists explain the above using a Noachian worldview?
The question of God's existence does not affect the science of biological evolution at all, one way or the other. If you think that the theory of evolution contradicts your beliefs about God, then the contradiction is with those beliefs, not God's existence.Regardless...
You are with those who argue against God being relevant to anything about evolution.
Everything God does has a purpose, your just trying to come up with excuses for your misused word. Which was a mess of a statement.Would you recognize a mess, if you saw it?
Can you tell me what this picture represents?
View attachment 363429
Or this?
View attachment 363430
In addition, have you read the book of Revelation?
Why would the universe need an external intelligence to start? There is nothing about the Universe that caring is required for.Regardless...
You are with those who argue against God being relevant to anything about evolution. That there is no explanation for the universe being started other than unlimited necessary existence that is eternal and showing intelligence and caring,
Evolution and the origin of the universe are very different topics.which would rightly be called God, means that there is such involvement with design even in any evolution happening.
Atheism is about if a person believes in god or not. It has nothing to do with science, morality, etc.Atheism does not have an answer for that, with any logic.
Is this supposed to mean something?What I posted is an answer that can be given, so if I can't have a thought out answer to the original question about placement of animals, so what? It is really smaller potatoes.
If it desired that I just make guesses to explain placement of animals for being considered relevant I could do so, but why should that be? Are guesses really wanted? There is no vested interest there.
Everything God does has a purpose,
... your just trying to come up with excuses for your misused word.
Which was a mess of a statement.
Why would the universe need an external intelligence to start?
Evolution and the origin of the universe are very different topics.
Atheism is about if a person believes in god or not.
That didn't help at all, God's judgment needs no cleaning, it's Holy and just. Your making a mess of things.
Fine -- call it judgement then.
God cleaned up His judgement.
If "God cleaned up His judgement" sounds better to you than "God cleaned up His mess," then I'm glad I can help you understand it better.
That didn't help at all,
God's judgment needs no cleaning,
... it's Holy and just.
Your making a mess of things.
I know exactly why you only quoted part of my post. Because you think your words are infallible.I didn't think it would.
"God cleaned up His mess" is easier to understand, than "God cleaned up His judgement."
Tell Noah that.
Indeed it is.
What mess?
God cleaned it up.
Else we wouldn't be here discussing it.
I know exactly why you only quoted part of my post.
It was that because you didn't but it's cool. I've experienced the "Christian site infallible stigma" it can cause just being involved with such sites. I've been guilty of it myself so I get it. Everybody's right and no one is wrong lol.Either that, or I quoted your entire post.
It was that because you didn't ...
Indeed i see it now, you are right and I was wrong.Your Post 493 consists of 20 words.
My Post 494 addresses all 20 of those words.
Yeah. John creates a complex allegorical fantasy about the fall of Rome.Would you recognize a mess, if you saw it?
Can you tell me what this picture represents?
View attachment 363429
Or this?
View attachment 363430
In addition, have you read the book of Revelation?
Yeah. John creates a complex allegorical fantasy about the fall of Rome.
Why would "academia" want to do such a thing?Uh-huh.
More like academia allegorizes the book of Revelation that way.
I suppose you think Humpty Dumpty is about the downfall of King Richard III?
Why would "academia" want to do such a thing?
Why would "academia" want to do such a thing?
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?