Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

That schit don't work with me, I play by your rules.

God tells us in the very first verse and hte earth was without form and void. IF it became without form and void, then Adam and Eve became naked because the same word is used to describe both. They weren't created naked. Also Satan became the craftiest of the creatures becaue he was not created that way. The Word actually is quite simple if one does not try to apply a bunch of 18th and 19th century theories.

There is a little tid-bit that The Creator God wrote with His Own finger in stone about the creation. He came to Moses and wrote that He created Heaven and earth and the sea and everything in them in six days and rested on the seventh day. Therefore they were to work for six days and rest on the seventh day.

How is it that so many don't believe God is able to communicate?

You play by whatever rules are convenient for you and suit your personal preferences. Which is to say, you make a lousy christian.


You also make for a lousy defender of the anti's cause. Quit digging the hole you are in. It's deeper than you can possible understand.

Go on. Elaborate. You know me from a hole in the wall. Please do tell me "my" rules.

The nasty anger that spews from the mouths of those who espouse the Lord is disappointing.

Yea, lot of 'smart' [bleep] are digging themselves a hole to he'll.

A thread like this is a terrific opportunity to walk the talk.

Not sure what version of evolution you believe in for sure. But, belief that a scale became a feather doesn't that require a measure of faith? Perhaps not to you. But to me it does.

As to your math problem....
Since mathematical values of some sort need to be assigned to those words, breaking it down to it's most rudimentary level will be to utilize the values of the letters.

Equating those letters with the corresponding numbers based on the alphabet, IBIOTTCO that:


genetics.......=80
genetic........=61
variation......=109
Sum............=250

evolution......=132


Therefore genetics + genetic variation > evolution
Thus proving intelligent design.

Did you know there are birds that have some of the same features as your "misssing link" like claws on the wings. Just because it had teeth tells us nothing. Some mammals have teeth and some don't. Some fish have teeth and some don't. Some retiles have teeth and some don't. Some amfibians have teeth and some don't. I guess if we include the Vanician Fly Trap even some plants have teeth.

What do we learn from this? Some don't learn anything but others learn some fauna have teeth and some don't.

Now, that is a HOOT!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh, though I hesitate to do so at your expense. It does, however, prove you don't understand the notion of proof.

BTW, I don't believe in evolution, I understand it and accept that it has to happen because it cannot be otherwise. The simple pair of facts that I listed and which even you have to accept, make it impossible that evolution cannot happen w/o devine intervention. I'm looking for how you prove that this has happened.

"Christians" always have been the greatest deterrent to Christianity. They still are.

I've read plenty of your posts and you are clearly no dope. Venus fly trap dont have teeth. They have extensions of the leaf which resemble what some people may think should be called teeth. Its the same tissue as the leaf. Teeth arent the same tissue as jaw or gum.


Noun:
1) Each of a set of hard, bony enamel-coated structures in the jaws of most vertebrates, used for biting and chewing.
2) A similar hard, pointed structure in invertebrate animals, typically functioning in the mechanical breakdown of food.

While that is certainly true for most, I'd exclude Ringman from that group. I couldn't disagree with him more but he is a gentleman about it. The rest of em? Well, nasty bunch for sure.

Let's follow that line. Did you know that some religions have books that dont state the same things as the books of other religions? Several different books state that they are correct. A contradition.

What do we learn from this? some learn nothing. Others learn that various religions have really old books that state various things.

That aside, its not a feature but a collection of features that leads to a theory that one thing MAY be a link between a prior and a newer species or form.

Arch may or may not be a "link". I dont claim to be an expert. That a mouse (or cat, or ear, or octopus) has teeth isnt germane to the observation or argument that an archaeopteryx does.



* edit. Huh. check out my post count. Creepin me out a little. *

Actually, you may want to read what Patterson actually had to say; you're apparently reading part of what he wrote, but missing the next sentence; he's actually expounding on why he won't say Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of all birds, because it might be a cousin species to Archaeopteryx.

Here's what he actually had to say on transitional fossils:
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes ..."

Red's on the phone. He wants to talk to you.

I have read a bunch of his posts and he is no dolt by a very wide margin and isnt often crass.

I couldn't stay away, I had to hear what Take_A_ Knee had come up when he was standing around thinking and scratching his balls, maybe even wondering why he had a seam on his scrotum. (Reference to an earlier thread).

Here's the past curator of the British Museum of Natural History.

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

I decided to get to the bottom of the matter. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.). My first step was to read the book. (I believe it is now out of print, but most university libraries should have a copy.) Anyone who has actually read the book can hardly say that Patterson believed in the absence of transitional forms. For example (p131-133):


"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
Patterson goes on to acknowledge that there are gaps in the fossil record, but points out that this is possibly due to the limitations of what fossils can tell us. He finishes the paragraph with:


". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."
It is actually this statement which is the key to interpreting the Sunderland quote correctly; it is not possible to say for certain whether a fossil is in the direct ancestral line of a species group. Archaeopteryx, for example, is not necessarily directly ancestral to birds. It may have been a species on a side-branch. However, that in no way disqualifies it as a transitional form, or as evidence for evolution. Evolution predicts that such fossils will exist, and if there was no link between reptiles and birds then Archaeopteryx would not exist, whether it is directly ancestral or not. What Patterson was saying to Sunderland was that, of the transitional forms that are known, he could not make a watertight argument for any being directly ancestral to living species groups.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

Crockettnj,



I stand politely corrected. Thanks.

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Oh, I do understand proof. But the proof that I live by can mean life or death. Not just where did this bug come from type proof. I design bridges and have to prove that my bridges will stand every day. I do that with math that is generally beyond most folk's understanding and even if I tried to explain it, eyes begin glazing over and it would be a further waste of time.

I also understand that neither of these hypotheses, Creationism, nor evolution, nor a couple of other hypotheses that I can dream up can be proven, or really dis-proven for that matter. And that IS by divine design. This is simply because the Lord God Almighty wants us to have faith in Him without looking for or needing a sign of some sort. I read that in a book. Opening up our heart to allow our spirit to communicate with His is where the knowledge of His power to do with this universe as He sees fit is derived. Really, that's all I need. With all due respect, I don't need anything from you or anyone else's approval or proof or what have you.

So, don't take it too heavily your being humored at my expense. I did so willingly, knowing full well that it was with a bit of levity and a bit of a waste of time. But it was mine to waste.

Later.

Post the transitionals for us. We are waiting.