Another transitional species found (Nazareth, organization, morality, moral)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by 303Guy

How do you expect educated kids to be able to prove evolution to be a false faith-based philosophy? It isn't so it cannot be proved as such. One needs to smoke their socks or something to be able to IMAGINE strange things like evolution is a 'faith based philosophy'. Faith based philosophy - good grief!

Just one small question; If you don't like science then why are you using a computer?

I actually love science. It is because of science that I can cast the philosophical evolutionary meanderings of nut jobs in the trash where it belongs.

I mean, I can understand why you would not like science, after all, science blows your belief system right out of the water, but why pick and choose which branch of science you reject? Just reject all of them, sell up you computer and your car and your microwave, don't ever travel by air (if God had wanted you to fly he would have created you with wings) and don't use electricity. Actually, you will have to stop eating too since most of your food is produced with science.

I love science. Try to get that through your thick skull.

And don't forget GPS. GPS is what proves that God could not have created the universe. You know? Relativity, time dilation, why information cannot travel across the universe instantaneously. You must hate science with a passion!

Actually, science has proven that two particles which were once together can interact no matter how far apart they are. Adjust one particle, and, no matter the distance of the other, the other will react to the adjustment of that particle. Therefore it is possible that our actions on our planet interact instantaneously with particles on the other side of the universe. All particles were once together prior to the so-called "Big Bang." In other words, we are all connected no matter the distance and therefore information exchange is likewise instantaneous across the universe. But of course to be absolutely proven, one would have to be at one end of the universe to prove the interaction at the other end of the universe. And since the historic documents which comprise our Bible tell us that God is everywhere, His spirit is everywhere in the universe, information likewise is instantaneous anywhere in the universe to God. It is just that it has taken science thousands of years to catch up with the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I learn and question science and rely on faith as to spiritual matters.

We have seen that you reject evidence that does not fit your faith. I on the other hand, do question. A link I followed argued against Archaeopteryx on the grounds that there were true birds before Archaeopteryx (which was therefore either a true bird or just a feathered dinosaur - take your pick). But I found that birds emergeged in the Cretaceous while Archaeopteryx and the other feathered dinosaurs were in the late Jurassic. So the objection was a mistake or a misrepresentation.

The point is - I questioned. You merely post Creationist objections and don't care about the weight of evidence.

Thus you are done as far as reasoned discussion goes. I leave you to your preaching, faith claims and backchat.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

There are no intermediary species in sedimentary layers, therefore it is not a naturally occurring phenomena since it is not occurring in the first place.

Now that's one I haven't heard before. Please post the sedimentary layers that you claim lack transitional forms. Of course you deny all transitional forms, so I don't know how you could evaluate such a claim.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

We have seen that you reject evidence that does not fit your faith.

Not wholly true. I reject the liars for evolution so-called "evidence" when it is filled with "possibly" and "Maybe" and "could have been" and "we think" and all manner of other weasel words. And I reject what you consider "evidence" when it goes against the facts.

I on the other hand, do question. A link I followed argued against Archaeopteryx on the grounds that there were true birds before Archaeopteryx (which was therefore either a true bird or just a feathered dinosaur - take your pick). But I found that birds emergeged in the Cretaceous while Archaeopteryx and the other feathered dinosaurs were in the late Jurassic. So the objection was a mistake or a misrepresentation.

Okay.

The point is - I questioned. You merely post Creationist objections and don't care about the weight of evidence.

But I do care about the weight of evidence. It is just that you don't like my weight of evidence which is against your weight of evidence.

Thus you are done as far as reasoned discussion goes. I leave you to your preaching, faith claims and backchat.

The faith claims come from you.

Now that's one I haven't heard before. Please post the sedimentary layers that you claim lack transitional forms. Of course you deny all transitional forms, so I don't know how you could evaluate such a claim.

"Far from showing organisms changing, the fossil record is very static—organisms appear fully formed and then disappear or remain today. The lack of change recorded in the fossil record is used by some evolutionists to support the idea of punctuated equilibrium. This hypothesis suggests that evolution happened in rapid bursts over short periods. The lack of transitional forms and the sudden appearance of new organisms in sedimentary layers are used to support this idea." Quote taken from:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils...ssil-record-1/

It always amazes me that creatards will, without question, believe organizations like Answers in Genesis but vehemently and wholeheartedly question, doubt, and ridicule the majority of scientists who say differently. Eusi, is a classical case in all sorts of cognitive biases. A walking contradiction full of double standards and ironies.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Not wholly true. I reject the liars for evolution so-called "evidence" when it is filled with "possibly" and "Maybe" and "could have been" and "we think" and all manner of other weasel words. And I reject what you consider "evidence" when it goes against the facts.


Okay.

But I do care about the weight of evidence. It is just that you don't like my weight of evidence which is against your weight of evidence.

So it seems. If it is too weighty, you ignore it and rely on Faith. "They may look like they evolved but God made them that way". Do you think we forgot?

The faith claims come from you.

"Far from showing organisms changing, the fossil record is very static—organisms appear fully formed and then disappear or remain today. The lack of change recorded in the fossil record is used by some evolutionists to support the idea of punctuated equilibrium. This hypothesis suggests that evolution happened in rapid bursts over short periods. The lack of transitional forms and the sudden appearance of new organisms in sedimentary layers are used to support this idea." Quote taken from:

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils...ssil-record-1/

More garbage . More denial. You have seen the lists of transitional forms - in sedimentary levels - if you don't know that Igneous rocks don't (normally) contain fossils (and metamorphic are consolidated sediments) you are even less informed than I thought.

Sorry, the straws you clutch at are imaginary ones.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

It always amazes me that creatards will, without question, believe organizations like Answers in Genesis but vehemently and wholeheartedly question, doubt, and ridicule the majority of scientists who say differently. Eusi, is a classical case in all sorts of cognitive biases. A walking contradiction full of double standards and ironies.

It's a shame as it isn't even necessary. Evolution does not disprove God or even Jesus.

I thought I'd look at the Eocene back to Mezozoic. There are many fossils but I'm looking for those that indicate transition. I might also observe that these are supposed to be post -Flood levels (Above Cretaceous) and what Creationism would propose is a bunch of proto 'Kinds' evolving rapidly into the present forms. Which is what the fossils seem to show.

What they would deny is any sign of transition.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It's a shame as it isn't even necessary. Evolution does not disprove God or even Jesus.

But evolution does make God and Jesus and the Genesis account a lie.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

It always amazes me that creatards will, without question, believe organizations like Answers in Genesis but vehemently and wholeheartedly question, doubt, and ridicule the majority of scientists who say differently. Eusi, is a classical case in all sorts of cognitive biases. A walking contradiction full of double standards and ironies.

And it always amazes me that evolutards will, without question, believe liars for evolution but vehemently and wholeheartedly question, doubt and ridicule the majority of scientists who work for Answers in Genesis. Shiloh1 is a classical case in all sorts of cognitive biases. A walking contradiction full of double standards and ironies.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

So it seems. If it is too weighty, you ignore it and rely on Faith. "They may look like they evolved but God made them that way". Do you think we forgot?

More garbage . More denial. You have seen the lists of transitional forms - in sedimentary levels - if you don't know that Igneous rocks don't (normally) contain fossils (and metamorphic are consolidated sediments) you are even less informed than I thought.

Sorry, the straws you clutch at are imaginary ones.

Thank you. You just proved my point.

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

It's a shame as it isn't even necessary. Evolution does not disprove God or even Jesus.

I thought I'd look at the Eocene back to Mezozoic. There are many fossils but I'm looking for those that indicate transition. I might also observe that these are supposed to be post -Flood levels (Above Cretaceous) and what Creationism would propose is a bunch of proto 'Kinds' evolving rapidly into the present forms. Which is what the fossils seem to show.

What they would deny is any sign of transition.

Actually it does disprove God particularly since everything he created was to reproduce after its kind. There should be no speciation if this were true. Creationism never proposed such a thing - it has evolved because science keeps showing creatards how wrong they are, as time marches forward, and this is what drives them changing definitions of 'kinds' and incorporated micro-evolution into their paradigm.

So now we have creationists actually saying that these proto-kinds (which of course never can nor will be defined) actually evolved into the present forms. So they do believe in evolution now. GREAT! This is exactly what you get when the Bible fails to actually give any clear definitions of what the hell it is talking about - creationists can just change their story to fit what science continually finds to be true and say that is how God did it. This is why God and creationism is not science and is a useless hypothesis.

Take for example what I brought up earlier with regard to all life using a similar genetic code. There is nothing in nature to prevent any organism from having its own unique code which would have been great since it would have gotten rid of interspecific viral infections - something they think an all-powerful and all-knowing God would not design for his creation particularly if he wanted all of his KINDS to reproduce after themselves and be uniquely dissimilar from the other kinds and forgoing any viral diseases. Of course death and disease itself speaks against this Creator. And what do they do to answer that - they make up another unsubstantiated story about how this is not the original creation but a fallen and cursed one. Yeah, see how easy it is to get rid of or incorporate evidence into their stupid story.

A good scientific theory explains X and not Y.

Evolutionary theory does this. The creationist hypothesis doesn’t. God could have used similar genes to make similar organisms, but he also could have used different ones. The creationist hypothesis doesn’t explain why he used similar ones.

This is why ‘God’ as a hypothesis is not a good hypothesis – it can explain anything since the term is not only vague on the one hand but expansive on the other. God is virtually capable of doing anything practically and therefore can explain anything. It also, so often, falls into the trap of special pleading.

Under evolution/common descent similar genes or the genetic code is exactly what you would expect. You would not expect the possible use of different genes or codes under evolutionary theory. Yet under theism you can expect both as well as a myriad of other possibilities. Of course there are vague clues in the Bible that tell us he would not or should not create these organisms with a similar code - particularly if he is an all wise God who would like to avoid genetic material being exchanged between organism so as to keep them as he created them or to avoid interp-specific viral infections. As such this evidence does prove the God of the Bible as not being the creator.

An omnipotent, inscrutable being could have done anything at all. So no observation rules out the action of such a designer. It’s an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

This is how creationists play tennis without the net – any evidence you bring to the table they can just say God could have done that – he is GOD after all.

Some evidence for evolution though is the type that a creator, at least the one of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, ect. (Intelligent, all-powerful, all-knowing) would not do. And if he did it would be contrary to those attributes. It would also violate some Scriptural fact about the creation. For example, God, in Genesis, said he created things according to their kind. And the best we can infer from this is that ‘kinds’ should reproduce after each other. Therefore you would not expect any speciation of any kind nor everything having a similar genetic code.

All of this is evidence for common descent and evolution and not YHWH creating life.