Ophiolite Posted December 13, 2005 Posted December 13, 2005 Fossilsof course they are required as being used as 'one of the' 'evidences' by evolutionaries.. I would like you to read this very carefully, then re-read it. If there is anything about it you don't understand, or are reluctant to accept let me know. 1) We can demonstrate that evolution has occured only from a study of fossils. 2) We can demonstrate evolution has occured only from comparative anatomy of living creatures. 3) We can demonstrate evolution occurs, only from a studies within microbiology. 4) We can demonstrate evolution purely from an examination of genetic code. We do not require each individual one of these to demonstrate evolution. Any of them will do. Yet we have all four. We have tens of thousands, no hundreds of thousands of research papers addressing evolution. How welcoming do you imagine many of us feel when we encounter the claim, yet again, "there is no evidence". It can become depressingly boring. You, however, have it within your grasp to make several evolutionists very happy, by going away, studying the evidence with a truly open mind, then reporting back here with your conclusion. Good luck.
bascule Posted December 13, 2005 Posted December 13, 2005 We do not require each individual one of these to demonstrate evolution. Any of them will do. Yet we have all four. DING DING! We have a winner!
ecoli Posted December 14, 2005 Posted December 14, 2005 How welcoming do you imagine many of us feel when we encounter the claim, yet again, "there is no evidence". It can become depressingly boring. You, however, have it within your grasp to make several evolutionists very happy, by going away, studying the evidence with a truly open mind, then reporting back here with your conclusion. Good luck. Real theists who wan't to make a point against evolution can say that all this evidence for evolution was placed here by God... So, if you believe in God and the previous statement, you can draw either two conclusion. 1) God is like a kid in an anthill, who just likes playing with us or 2) Evolution was a tool used by God for creation I like the second one better, it makes more sense and it fits the data.
bascule Posted December 14, 2005 Posted December 14, 2005 1) God is like a kid in an anthill' date=' who just likes playing with us Or maybe it's all a test of your faith... gotta have faith...
Ophiolite Posted December 14, 2005 Posted December 14, 2005 Real theists who wan't to make a point against evolution .......Were I a theist - I am a devout agnostic - I would trumpeting evolution as evidence of the wonders of God: to set in motion something like the Universe that moved towards ever increasing complexity and generated living, conscious beings would represent the omnipotence and omniscience of the creator in a truly wonderful way. The narrow minded, bible literalist beliefs are an offense to my notion of what God would be like. It takes all sorts to make a world........but only one sort to understand it.
jdurg Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 I think that one also needs to keep in mind that not every single living creature turns into a fossil when it dies. There's a good chance that we don't have fossil records of certain periods because the climate and conditions at that time did not allow for the formation of fossils.
Phi for All Posted December 16, 2005 Posted December 16, 2005 As part of our new policy on creationism, since no NEW points have been raised, and this thread is starting to just bring up all the same old points, I'm going to close it so it doesn't waste anyone's time. Feel free to search for "creationism" and read what's already been posed and refuted. If yolu have anything NEW to add, please PM me to reopen any closed thread or feel free to start a new thread trumpeting your colossal breakthrough.
Recommended Posts