The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[theQuincunx5]

I see chimps and apes skulls lined up side by side with a few humans. No relation.

OF COURSE! I mean it only takes a quick view to see that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common to the ones that are fully modern humans! I mean you can almost see the divine essence in the human skulls!

 

[dad]

Ah, I asked you how you know that it was not the same, and you tell me because you know when it was not the same.

Ah, I asked you how you know that it was the same, and you tell me because you know when it was the same.

Thanks for answering...Wait, what?

[Shaking my head in sorrow]

 

[dad]

Ah, you know it must be a religion because we force children to science religion school to sing:

The Origin of the Species.
Yes, that's the book for me!
I stand alone on the word of Darwin,
The O-O-T-S!
​

Oh wait, we don't do that. Isn't that what you do?

They do ban bibles and creation teaching though, and mandate the religion of evolution. Good thing a lot of kids realize what is going on and rebel in their hearts against it. Ha.

 

[dad]

Present a reason to believe a different state past existed.

Present a reason to believe a same state past existed.

We have evidence for the the state staying the same, in that it has never been shown to for all human history and that the evidence of ancient times supports it being the same.

You say you do but do not have anything whatsoever. Hilarious. Your beliefs also fly in the face of the historical and Scripture records.

You also need to present evidence that the theory was presented from supernatural sources. This is even harder for you as we have the actual detailed writings of the scientists who developed the theory.

Easy. Does it promote or attack faith in Jesus as creator and His word?

The nature being the same is a totally reasonable conclusion from the evidence.

Totally unreaonable fanatical blind faith and faith alone actually.

WHY SHOULD WE ASSUMED IT CHANGED?

Get over yourself. You think it matters what you assume for no reason? The issue is what science knows and can prove.

Being poetic doesn't answer the direction question: "How do you know you are more reliable in your ability to discern then anyone else, Christian and non Christian alike?"

It isn't about me. Now I ask you, if the bible and creation are real and true, what is the best way to interpret evidence?

Also I really need to know how you define religion. Because I can't work it out from context.

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Origin sciences ARE religion.

What history? All you have is your interpretation of a distinctly mythical chapter of the bible.

Any history that records spirits as real beings, or long life spans for example.

The evidence is that languages did not develop simultaneously with ancient Babylon.

Great, so if the languages were divided at the tower of Babel, that fits.

There is no layer or evidence for a great flood.

Says who?

You can't present objective evidence for a creator, do you can't use that as evidence that it created anything.

Jesus is evidence for a creator.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Ah, I asked you how you know that it was the same, and you tell me because you know when it was the same.

Thanks for answering...Wait, what?

[Shaking my head in sorrow]

When one makes a positive claim about a SPECIFIC EVENT (rather than the lack of a specific event) it is up to the person making the positive claim to show evidence of said specific event.

In other words: I am in no way on the hook to provide evidence that the world wasn't destroyed in an atomic holocaust last week and replaced with a perfect simulation of the world just before the holocaust wherein all the people don't remember the nuclear holocaust.

If you were to say that there was a specific event (the change from a "different state of physics" to the modern state of physics) then it is up to YOU to provide evidence for it.

 

[theQuincunx5]

They do ban bibles and creation teaching though, and mandate the religion of evolution. Good thing a lot of kids realize what is going on and rebel in their hearts against it. Ha.

You talk a big game... how would you like it if religion were actually allowed in schools? Sounds good does it? How about if it's not your religion?

Not so sanguine then I bet.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ah, I asked you how you know that it was the same, and you tell me because you know when it was the same.

Thanks for answering...Wait, what?

[Shaking my head in sorrow]

Uh no, That is not what I said. In previous posts I have given you detailed arguments for why it is reasonable to expect the laws of nature have been constant.

 

[dad]

When one makes a positive claim about a SPECIFIC EVENT (rather than the lack of a specific event) it is up to the person making the positive claim to show evidence of said specific event.

Well, if you make up a same nature in the past, it's up to you to show evidence. This is news?

In other words: I am in no way on the hook to provide evidence that the world wasn't destroyed in an atomic holocaust last week and replaced with a perfect simulation of the world just before the holocaust wherein all the people don't remember the nuclear holocaust.

You are under obligation to support what you base all claims upon. In your case, a same nature having existed in the past is your claim, not war. Get to er.

If you were to say that there was a specific event (the change from a "different state of physics" to the modern state of physics) then it is up to YOU to provide evidence for it.

If the bible tells of a different nature in the future, you cannot tell us it will not be, or will be. Same with the past. You may say 'I do not know'. That is the full extent of what you may do in any and all origin issues.

 

[dad]

You talk a big game... how would you like it if religion were actually allowed in schools? Sounds good does it? How about if it's not your religion?

Not so sanguine then I bet.

It is in schools. No news there.

 

[dad]

Uh no, That is not what I said. In previous posts I have given you detailed arguments for why it is reasonable to expect the laws of nature have been constant.

You have offered beliefs. I do not find your unsupported beliefs reasonable in any way. I do not think that claiming the universe sailed out from a teensy sweet nothing of a hot soup to be reasonable. I do not find claiming a pretty woman shared a common ancestor with a potato reasonable.

 

[xianghua]

Really?

yes realy. so you main objection to my argument is that we can prove that a complex system can evolve. now, do you agree that a car is ic system? if not tell why and we will continue.

 

[xianghua]

You mean the first life? That's not even a part of evolution.

Cars aren't organic and undergo small random changes every generation.

i actually talking about an organic molecule. do you think that such a mulecule can evolve stepwise into a car? it should be possible if you believe in evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

i actually talking about an organic molecule. do you think that such a mulecule can evolve stepwise into a car? it should be possible if you believe in evolution.

Yeah, when a car evolves naturally it's called a horse.

 

[theQuincunx5]

yes realy. so you main objection to my argument is that we can prove that a complex system can evolve. now, do you agree that a car is ic system? if not tell why and we will continue.

I believe that has already been well established for you.

Cars do not breed, cars are not organic. Cars don't self-reproduce.

You may not know where cars come from, but almost everyone else here does.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Well, if you make up a same nature in the past, it's up to you to show evidence. This is news?
You are under obligation to support what you base all claims upon. In your case, a same nature having existed in the past is your claim, not war. Get to er.
If the bible tells of a different nature in the future, you cannot tell us it will not be, or will be. Same with the past. You may say 'I do not know'. That is the full extent of what you may do in any and all origin issues.

I understand this is your "schtick", but I have to ask if you honestly have no idea what people are saying to you or if most of your responses are autogenerated.

I'm just curious. (DOn't worry, I won't tell anyone if you are just playin' and you actually do understand what is being said.)

 

[Shemjaza]

i actually talking about an organic molecule. do you think that such a mulecule can evolve stepwise into a car? it should be possible if you believe in evolution.

Nothing can ever evolve into a car because a car is a machine not a living thing.

What do you mean organic molecule? Unless it's already self replicating then it can't evolve either.


This is the third time I've asked about an actual example of a jump too far in Evolution and you can't think of one.

Magic cars and trying to to talk about abiogenesis aren't covering up that you don't know of any examples.

 

[dad]

I understand this is your "schtick", but I have to ask if you honestly have no idea what people are saying to you or if most of your responses are autogenerated.

I'm just curious. (DOn't worry, I won't tell anyone if you are just playin' and you actually do understand what is being said.)

If you make up a same nature in the past, it's up to you to show evidence. You cannot do that. Don't blame others. Not sure if you actually understand this.

 

[theQuincunx5]

If you make up a same nature in the past, it's up to you to show evidence. You cannot do that. Don't blame others. Not sure if you actually understand this.

So you think you are making a valid riposte to my statement? Really?

Ok. (Like I said, I won't tell anyone if you are just funnin' here...)

 

[dad]

So you think you are making a valid riposte to my statement? Really?

Ok. (Like I said, I won't tell anyone if you are just funnin' here...)

Since you have no support for your beliefs or basis for them in regards to the nature being the same in the past, no retorts are needed or deserved.

You need to achieve a higher level than mere religion.

 

[dad]

OF COURSE! I mean it only takes a quick view to see that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common to the ones that are fully modern humans! I mean you can almost see the divine essence in the human skulls!

Actually the divine essence is in life, not the dead. Science doesn't even know that.