Guess who has the burden of proof!

[Ringtone]

God did not create God, and why would you assume that God created evil?

I Assume nothing, but you wrote this:

By God, we mean an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness.

Why would you assume that God is an eternally self-subsistent, timeless, immaterial and immutable being of incomparable greatness?
Just guessing?

Good question. I don't assume. I know . . . just as you do. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness tells us what God necessarily is.

Behold:

The pertinent ramifications of the first principles of metaphysics and logic that everybody knows, but few think about:​

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe (physical world) began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

The following is my own syllogistic formulation regarding the only possible cause of the material realm of being per the underlying imperatives of the first and second premise:

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.​

​

3.1. If the cause of the universe's existence were impersonal, it would be operationally mechanical.​

3.2. An operationally mechanical cause would be a material existent.​

3.3. The causal conditions for the effect of an operationally mechanical cause would be given from eternity.​

3.4. But a material existent is a contingent entity of continuous change and causality!​

3.5. An infinite temporal series of past causal events cannot be traversed to the present.​

3.6. Indeed, an actual infinite cannot exist.​

3.7. Hence, a temporal existent cannot have a beginningless past.​

3.8. Hence, time began to exist.​

3.9. A material existent is a temporal existent.​

3.10. Hence, materiality began to exist.​

3.11. The universe is a material existent.​

3.12. Hence, the universe began to exist.​

3.13. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be material (per 3.10.).​

3.14. Hence, the cause of the universe's existence cannot be operationally mechanical (per 3.2., 3.10.).​

3.15. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is wholly transcendent: timeless, immaterial and immutable (3.13.).​

3.16. The only kind of timeless entity that could cause the beginning of time sans any external, predetermining causal conditions would be a personal agent of free will (per 3.3., 3.14.).​

3.17. Hence, the eternally self-subsistent cause of the universe's existence is a personal agent of free will.​

​

Broadly summarized: the eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be natural (or material), as no continuously changing entity of causality can be beginningless. The latter would entail an infinite regress of causal events, which cannot go on in the past forever. There must be a first event, before which there is no change or event. In short, given that an infinite regress of causal events is impossible, the material realm of being cannot be the eternally self-subsistent ground of existence. The eternally self-subsistent cause cannot be abstract either. An abstract object has no causal force, and, in any event, abstractions contingently exist in minds. Hence, the uncaused cause is a wholly transcendent, unembodied mind.​

​

 

[Ringtone]

Drop ten and... drop another ten and skedaddle alert.

Post nonsense to hide your lack of intellect and reasoning ability.

By the way, Orangecat, follow this link to a more comprehensive delineation of the speciation dispute: common ancestry vs. common design.

 

[Orangecat]

By the way, Orangecat, follow this link to a more comprehensive delineation of the speciation dispute: common ancestry vs. common design.

No linky.

 

[Ringtone]

By the way, Orangecat, follow this link to a more comprehensive delineation of the speciation dispute: common ancestry vs. common design.

No linky.

Oops. LOL! Here it is: Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

Why is it clear that men like Goliath once existed? There are certainly people who suffer from “gigantism”, a pituitary gland issue. That condition is rare though and the more extreme cases lead to people with myriad bone, ligament and other health issues.

Legend building, tales and fables told and re-told over time could easily account for the fable of giants.

You know that Robin Hood wasn’t a real character, right?

There are also bones/fossils that suggest that everything once not only grew bigger, but lived longer. It is logical that the levels of oxygen were once higher than today. Clearly, humans knew about dinosaurs/dragons, and they also knew of giants. They existed as described in the Bible.

Well, hold on a minute. The fossil evidence for the dinosaur giants extends back millions of years. You dismiss those timeframes within the Ark fable. You’re not presenting a consistent argument. Were oxygen levels in the atmosphere so much different 4,000 years ago that the planet was materially different? Not the case.

How would you explain dating methods that place the age of dinosaurs so far into the past? I understand that creationists have a litany of criticisms aimed at dating methods but even if we were to accept those as true,(they’re not), we’re still looking at timeframes many hundreds of thousands of years further back in time vs. 4,000 years.

 

[Hollie]

Good question. I don't assume. I know . . . just as you do. The rational forms and logical categories of human consciorusness tells us what God necessarily is.

Ah. So, then.

Behold!

You are claiming that all of humanity, past and present that did not, does not subscribe to the literal Christian mythology necessarily suffers from irrational forms and illogical categories of human consciousness.

As Christianity was invented long after so much of humanity has lived and died, I have to think that your notion of religion, humanity and history is little more than Cult introduced nonsense.

 

[Ringtone]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

Wrong, Hollie. The term kinds is merely the biblical designation regarding the division of species and does not preclude the speciation of adaptive radiation within or its attending mechanisms thereof at all. Once again, the Bible does not proscribe, literally or otherwise, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth or, for example, even that of mankind. The YEC's notion is derived from the pre-scientific hermeneutics of Ussher! What the Bible actually states and Ussher's hermeneutics are not the same animal. The latter is the stuff of certain assumptions that are not inherent to the text. And, by the way, the YEC's notion regarding the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your so-called refutation of the text is predicated on nothing else whatsoever but your circular presupposition of metaphysical naturalism/materialism. That's your religion, Hollie.

You're no different than the YEC, God bless them as they mean well and their assumptions are born of what they believe to be a faithful rendering of the text, in the sense that you too think to impose the very same assumptions while you simultaneously impose your metaphysical presupposition on the available evidence, namely, that the chronological order of the appearance of species, a speciation of generally increasing complexity, necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

Your the closed-minded fundamentalist as you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the scientific Creationist of common design is actually asserting!

 

[surada]

Turek has come to the same realization I came to some years ago.

Why don't you put that in your own words?

 

[surada]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

Wrong, Hollie. The term kinds is merely the biblical designation regarding the division of species and does not preclude the speciation of adaptive radiation within or its attending mechanisms thereof at all. Once again, the Bible does not proscribe, literally or otherwise, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth or, for example, even that of mankind. The YEC's notion is derived from the pre-scientific hermeneutics of Ussher! What the Bible actually states and Ussher's hermeneutics are not the same animal. The latter is the stuff of certain assumptions that are not inherent to the text. And, by the way, the YEC's notion regarding the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your so-called refutation of the text is predicated on nothing else whatsoever but your circular presupposition of metaphysical naturalism/materialism. That's your religion, Hollie.

You're no different than the YEC, God bless them as they mean well and their assumptions are born of what they believe to be a faithful rendering of the text, in the sense that you too think to impose the very same assumptions while you simultaneously impose your metaphysical presupposition on the available evidence, namely, that the chronological order of the appearance of species, a speciation of generally increasing complexity, necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

Your the closed-minded fundamentalist as you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the scientific Creationist of common design is actually asserting!

What are you trying to say? 6,000 years ago Sumer had agriculture, irrigation, written language and sailboats.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

Why is it clear that men like Goliath once existed? There are certainly people who suffer from “gigantism”, a pituitary gland issue. That condition is rare though and the more extreme cases lead to people with myriad bone, ligament and other health issues.

Legend building, tales and fables told and re-told over time could easily account for the fable of giants.

You know that Robin Hood wasn’t a real character, right?

There are also bones/fossils that suggest that everything once not only grew bigger, but lived longer. It is logical that the levels of oxygen were once higher than today. Clearly, humans knew about dinosaurs/dragons, and they also knew of giants. They existed as described in the Bible.

Well, hold on a minute. The fossil evidence for the dinosaur giants extends back millions of years. You dismiss those timeframes within the Ark fable. You’re not presenting a consistent argument. Were oxygen levels in the atmosphere so much different 4,000 years ago that the planet was materially different? Not the case.

How would you explain dating methods that place the age of dinosaurs so far into the past? I understand that creationists have a litany of criticisms aimed at dating methods but even if we were to accept those as true,(they’re not), we’re still looking at timeframes many hundreds of thousands of years further back in time vs. 4,000 years.

Scientists are now willingly admitting that various dating methods are flawed and inadequate: Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

Wrong, Hollie. The term kinds is merely the biblical designation regarding the division of species and does not preclude the speciation of adaptive radiation within or its attending mechanisms thereof at all. Once again, the Bible does not proscribe, literally or otherwise, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth or, for example, even that of mankind. The YEC's notion is derived from the pre-scientific hermeneutics of Ussher! What the Bible actually states and Ussher's hermeneutics are not the same animal. The latter is the stuff of certain assumptions that are not inherent to the text. And, by the way, the YEC's notion regarding the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your so-called refutation of the text is predicated on nothing else whatsoever but your circular presupposition of metaphysical naturalism/materialism. That's your religion, Hollie.

You're no different than the YEC, God bless them as they mean well and their assumptions are born of what they believe to be a faithful rendering of the text, in the sense that you too think to impose the very same assumptions while you simultaneously impose your metaphysical presupposition on the available evidence, namely, that the chronological order of the appearance of species, a speciation of generally increasing complexity, necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

Your the closed-minded fundamentalist as you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the scientific Creationist of common design is actually asserting!

Your weak attempt to sidestep around and re-write the Bibles doesn’t change what is delineated in the Bibles. The various squads of Bible believers; YEC, OEC, cafeteria religioners can argue among themselves who is the “real religionist”. Bible “Beliebers” tend to lash out at people successfully pointing out the obvious errors, contradictions and absurdities of the Bible. Those who are claiming that it is a book without error, and is historically and scientifically accurate are simply wrong.

Arguments related to the rational perspectives of science, evolutionary biology, the earth sciences, etc., are about detailing a physical model for origins and the diversity of life on the planet. The religious arguments are in direct contradiction to the reason and rationality of science. There is a vast flood of material being published on evolution, all the time, in the standard scientific journals. The theories are testable and the results can be confirmed or confounded. Not so with claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Bishop Ussher actually said the earth was created at 8:15 AM on Thursday morning, October 15, 4004 BC. Yes Thursday, not Sunday. He was absolutely correct.... because I say so.

 

[Hollie]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

The evidence for biolo - that organisms have changed radically over the course of hundreds of millions of years since the first life on earth - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of the comparative morphology and genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Most biologists currently find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of macroevolution but the common descent of all known life. On a smaller scale, including microevolution and low-level macroevolution (e.g. speciation), evolution is observed to continue today.

I can see you’re angry and emotive.

You need new glasses, then.

There are those delicate types who deny science because it offends their tender sensibilities.

And there are those stupid types who think others deny science.

Let me help.

You could help the general IQ level of the site by shutting up.

There is no such thing as evolution. Gawds made the earth 6,000 years ago and Noah went sailing 4,000 years ago with all life on the planet fully formed.

That is about as likely as "expansion" being the impetus of life.

Allahu Akbar.

Not really.

Expansion of the universe would be, you know, expansion of the universe.

Biology is a different matter. Biology and expansion are spelled differently so it’s easier to distinguish those terms.

Again, while humans have adapted through technological advancements. I'm resolved to question their ability to survive without them. It is clear that men like Goliath once existed. And certainly would be a (humanly speaking) formidable match physically to most people living today. And the simple fact is, that if all the abortions worldwide were calculated along with our statistic for life expectancy, I imagine the average age would drop to the levels of previous generations--- perhaps even more. AND If there were no FLOOD, we would have few if any fossil remains.

Why is it clear that men like Goliath once existed? There are certainly people who suffer from “gigantism”, a pituitary gland issue. That condition is rare though and the more extreme cases lead to people with myriad bone, ligament and other health issues.

Legend building, tales and fables told and re-told over time could easily account for the fable of giants.

You know that Robin Hood wasn’t a real character, right?

There are also bones/fossils that suggest that everything once not only grew bigger, but lived longer. It is logical that the levels of oxygen were once higher than today. Clearly, humans knew about dinosaurs/dragons, and they also knew of giants. They existed as described in the Bible.

Well, hold on a minute. The fossil evidence for the dinosaur giants extends back millions of years. You dismiss those timeframes within the Ark fable. You’re not presenting a consistent argument. Were oxygen levels in the atmosphere so much different 4,000 years ago that the planet was materially different? Not the case.

How would you explain dating methods that place the age of dinosaurs so far into the past? I understand that creationists have a litany of criticisms aimed at dating methods but even if we were to accept those as true,(they’re not), we’re still looking at timeframes many hundreds of thousands of years further back in time vs. 4,000 years.

Scientists are now willingly admitting that various dating methods are flawed and inadequate: Carbon dating accuracy called into question after major flaw discovery

I think it’s important to point something out.

from your link:
“Sure enough, it showed that plant material in the southern Levant showed an average carbon offset of about 19 years compared with the current northern hemisphere standard calibration curve.”

While the headline of the posted article suggested a bit of drama, it’s important to keep the timescales in mind.

Dating methods to include Carbon, radiometric, isotope, etc., will have variances. Dating a fossil to 2 million years in the past plus or minus a few percent doesn’t materially change the age of the specimen.

 

[LittleNipper]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

Wrong, Hollie. The term kinds is merely the biblical designation regarding the division of species and does not preclude the speciation of adaptive radiation within or its attending mechanisms thereof at all. Once again, the Bible does not proscribe, literally or otherwise, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth or, for example, even that of mankind. The YEC's notion is derived from the pre-scientific hermeneutics of Ussher! What the Bible actually states and Ussher's hermeneutics are not the same animal. The latter is the stuff of certain assumptions that are not inherent to the text. And, by the way, the YEC's notion regarding the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your so-called refutation of the text is predicated on nothing else whatsoever but your circular presupposition of metaphysical naturalism/materialism. That's your religion, Hollie.

You're no different than the YEC, God bless them as they mean well and their assumptions are born of what they believe to be a faithful rendering of the text, in the sense that you too think to impose the very same assumptions while you simultaneously impose your metaphysical presupposition on the available evidence, namely, that the chronological order of the appearance of species, a speciation of generally increasing complexity, necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

Your the closed-minded fundamentalist as you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the scientific Creationist of common design is actually asserting!

Your weak attempt to sidestep around and re-write the Bibles doesn’t change what is delineated in the Bibles. The various squads of Bible believers; YEC, OEC, cafeteria religioners can argue among themselves who is the “real religionist”. Bible “Beliebers” tend to lash out at people successfully pointing out the obvious errors, contradictions and absurdities of the Bible. Those who are claiming that it is a book without error, and is historically and scientifically accurate are simply wrong.

Arguments related to the rational perspectives of science, evolutionary biology, the earth sciences, etc., are about detailing a physical model for origins and the diversity of life on the planet. The religious arguments are in direct contradiction to the reason and rationality of science. There is a vast flood of material being published on evolution, all the time, in the standard scientific journals. The theories are testable and the results can be confirmed or confounded. Not so with claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Bishop Ussher actually said the earth was created at 8:15 AM on Thursday morning, October 15, 4004 BC. Yes Thursday, not Sunday. He was absolutely correct.... because I say so.

You do not believe that there was a Worldwide FLOOD. All Bible Christians accept that Noah's Flood was a real event with environmental and biological implications.

 

[surada]

Is biological evolution not a fact?

It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.

Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.

To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.

Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.

The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.

It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.

Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).

I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.

I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.

Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.

There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.

There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.

Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.

Just look at all the dog and cat "kinds" that came to be in a few hundred years of breeding by the well to do. Horses would have been bred to be strong, fast, have fine lines, have healthy colts, and have stamina. They were the car engines of their day. Just look how the automobile has chanced over the last 100 years. No one in their right mind would suggest that they evolved all on their own...

I’m not so sure your argument addresses the historical fossil record. I suppose the very first question to creationists is “what is a "kind"? Creationists use “kinds” to identify everything from species to entire groups of animals. By the narrow definition, variation to new kinds has never occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in a mere 4,000 years. Yes, the automobile has changed but quite clearly, organisms evolve as a function of biology, mechanical parts do not.

Creationists have never addressed, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see “kinds” vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past. Strangely, that variation over is what we call evolution, (or evilution). That imposes a strict literal interpretation of the Bibles in order to squash timeframes to a few thousand years thus artificially limiting the mechanisms of biology.

The “kinds” label really isn’t a precise description of anything. Dogs and cats bred by humans aren’t new “kinds” they’re still dogs and cats. On the other hand, we have a fossil record that shows change, adaptation and speciation over the timeframes of millions of years.

The creationist is still burdened by the fact that two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. The Ark fable simply does not provide for any biological diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. The science is quite clear on the disaster of inbreeding.

Wrong, Hollie. The term kinds is merely the biblical designation regarding the division of species and does not preclude the speciation of adaptive radiation within or its attending mechanisms thereof at all. Once again, the Bible does not proscribe, literally or otherwise, the age of the universe, the age of the Earth or, for example, even that of mankind. The YEC's notion is derived from the pre-scientific hermeneutics of Ussher! What the Bible actually states and Ussher's hermeneutics are not the same animal. The latter is the stuff of certain assumptions that are not inherent to the text. And, by the way, the YEC's notion regarding the age of the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years. Your so-called refutation of the text is predicated on nothing else whatsoever but your circular presupposition of metaphysical naturalism/materialism. That's your religion, Hollie.

You're no different than the YEC, God bless them as they mean well and their assumptions are born of what they believe to be a faithful rendering of the text, in the sense that you too think to impose the very same assumptions while you simultaneously impose your metaphysical presupposition on the available evidence, namely, that the chronological order of the appearance of species, a speciation of generally increasing complexity, necessarily entails an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect.

Your the closed-minded fundamentalist as you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the scientific Creationist of common design is actually asserting!

Your weak attempt to sidestep around and re-write the Bibles doesn’t change what is delineated in the Bibles. The various squads of Bible believers; YEC, OEC, cafeteria religioners can argue among themselves who is the “real religionist”. Bible “Beliebers” tend to lash out at people successfully pointing out the obvious errors, contradictions and absurdities of the Bible. Those who are claiming that it is a book without error, and is historically and scientifically accurate are simply wrong.

Arguments related to the rational perspectives of science, evolutionary biology, the earth sciences, etc., are about detailing a physical model for origins and the diversity of life on the planet. The religious arguments are in direct contradiction to the reason and rationality of science. There is a vast flood of material being published on evolution, all the time, in the standard scientific journals. The theories are testable and the results can be confirmed or confounded. Not so with claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Bishop Ussher actually said the earth was created at 8:15 AM on Thursday morning, October 15, 4004 BC. Yes Thursday, not Sunday. He was absolutely correct.... because I say so.

You do not believe that there was a Worldwide FLOOD. All Bible Christians accept that Noah's Flood was a real event with environmental and biological implications.

No.. all Christians don't accept a worldwide flood. There is NO worldwide flood footprint.. In all likelihood the flood that inspired the wonderful story was a flood of the Euphrates River Basin circa 2900 BC and the ark was barges used to haul grain, beer and livestock down river. We know from the kings list and the geology that it did flood .. massively from time to time.. That's what built the delta south of Basra.

 

[sealybobo]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

Then it isn’t even a theory. Not a scientific one.

I want to talk about faith for a moment. It’s not about if something is true or based in fact or reality or the laws of physics, nature or even basic common sense. It’s whether or not we’re dumb enough to believe that matters.

 

[Meriweather]

It’s whether or not we’re dumb enough to believe that matters.

More likely, it is whether we are daring enough to seek and find, to try it out.

 

[rightwinger]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

Then it isn’t even a theory. Not a scientific one.

I want to talk about faith for a moment. It’s not about if something is true or based in fact or reality or the laws of physics, nature or even basic common sense. It’s whether or not we’re dumb enough to believe that matters.

Faith means......I should know better....

 

[sealybobo]

The existence of God is the Theory

There is no proof of that Theory

Then it isn’t even a theory. Not a scientific one.

I want to talk about faith for a moment. It’s not about if something is true or based in fact or reality or the laws of physics, nature or even basic common sense. It’s whether or not we’re dumb enough to believe that matters.

Faith means......I should know better....

That rant about faith I heard on it’s always sunny in Philadelphia. Dennis said it. Charlie’s mom had cancer and they were mocking the church for asking them for money. He asked the priest to donate the ring on his finger to help raise money for the cause.

He said to the priest something Like, “I’m not mad at you. I’m a scammer too. I get it.“ So as a scammer he appreciated the scam. I’m sort of the same way. Religion is a great business. Similarly I don’t hate republicans. I’m just disappointed in the people who buy what they’re selling. Idiots.

 

[Meriweather]

I’m just disappointed in the people who buy what they’re selling.

What are they selling? Also, what is it the Democrats are selling?