davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Big Sky Daddy make heap big wind. Wind blow in man nose!
Ad hominem
Big Sky Daddy make heap big wind. Wind blow in man nose!
This thread, although in my name, is not mine, as I don’t question evolution. Plus I am not a creationist in the commonly used way.
Jan.
Seemingly more reasonable but still myth dependant.
What is the problem with all these folk?... the universe is eternal and requires no creator as opposed to requiring an eternal mythical character to pop out of eternity to create a finite universe...the universe is eternal and requires no creator...say it again as you just do not seem to remember ...
Alex
Palaeontologist's what?Think about what you're saying. Read books instead of believing what some random person concludes. Books written by qualified palaeontologist's, with no agenda.
He was on to a different position within two pages.Stick to this position, and maybe people might stop mocking you because that is all they actually know.
He was on to a different position within two pages.
But stop talking about other people here. What do YOU believe?
Actually, theistic evolution does not require that God meddle with the process. It is in essence the view that the universe is God's creation, including the patterns or laws according to which nature seems constrained to behave - and which the evolution of life also follows. While some may think meddling is involved, it strikes me as pretty counterproductive to argue in favour of meddling, as that would introduce an unevidenced, and thus not scientific, supernatural component to the process. Since the whole point of it is to reconcile science with religion on this issue, that would seem to defeat the purpose.Nope. He has stated quite clearly that he believes all people came from God, and were created around the same time that Adam and Eve were created. Theistic evolution, on the other hand, claims that evolution has proceeded as laid out in the theory of evolution (i.e. primates and humans share a common ancestor, as does all life on Earth) but that God meddled with the process.
But your confusion is a good example of the constantly changing justifications needed to support a theistic belief in the face of science. For example, now Jan can say "well, what I meant was that God created people like the Bible says, but the time between day 5 and 6 was really like a billion years so it all matches" or some other retcon. (Actually he won't say that because he never actually comes right out and says what he believes - but he will suggest something like that and then refuse to clarify it.) Or you could say "well, I meant young Earth creationism" and keep iterating until there is less of a disagreement in your positions.
This myth word you like using, can you prove that God is a myth?
the burden of proof lies with you.
You don't know what that means.Ad hominem
Pretty much in relation to JC ...anyone can.
Its much like proving daylight as all you do is look.
But I suppose the qualifyer is...there are none so blind as those who will not see.
If you look you will see JC was a myth it is that simple.
If you want to prove there is a god the burden of proof is with you.
If I want to say there is no god the burden of proof stays with you.
We have a group of frauds, our human gods, all with the same basic MO ...human gods and JC was just another and if you cant figure it out from there well you are not really trying.
Have you forgetten already...the universe is eternal and requires no creator ... JC was just another human god based on astrology.
Alex
You don't know what that means.
Good! That's a clear statement of belief, something we don't see too often here.I believe in God, always have and always will.No empirical evidence just faith, just like an atheist, but I admit I can't prove it.
It's somewhat more important to me since my wife is a surgeon, and I'm concerned about the world I am leaving my children.And I don't know if evolution is correct or not, I have no faith in it as it's not important to me.
Nope. You can have atheists that don't think evolution works. You can have staunch Catholics who accept evolution as how life came to be on this planet. They're separate things.An atheists faith hinges on evolution and not God.
Hmm. From the link you posted, it sounds like their position is that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God" and they accept "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God."Actually, theistic evolution does not require that God meddle with the process. . . . The view that evolution depends on meddling by God is ID, surely?
No.Do you understand?
Good because you cant.I have no intention of proving if God is
No and I have been careful not to say that although admitedly I may have got carried away and hinted at that...but generally no.So you think because of your claim that Jesus is a myth it is the end of God?
Yes have you heard of Thor?Have you heard of Judaism?
I think I started a thread .....Explain, maybe in another thread, how you have proved that the universe is eternal
Palaeontologist's what?
Or do you mean palaeontologists?
As I understand it (this is what I was brought up with), the only claim is that creation was , well, created and the order we see is thus God's order. There is no suggestion the normal laws have been interfered with in order to produce the results we see. So set in motion, yes, but perhaps also "upheld", in the sense that the laws and order we see continue to apply, rather than changing or collapsing. It gets a bit close to Spinoza's or Einstein's "God", in a way.Hmm. From the link you posted, it sounds like their position is that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God" and they accept "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God."
Perhaps the distinction is that ID proponents claim that God drives evolution directly (i.e. a platypus looks like that because God wants it to) but in theistic evolution the guidance is much more gentle i.e. subtle tweaks to physical constants, starting conditions and mutation?
There are. Everywhere. Everything you see is in principle in the process of changing from something to something else. Though there are some species that seem to have changed very little for a very long time, e.g cockroaches, crocodiles.If evolution is a fact, and happens so slowly, then why aren't there half-breeds (missing links) still alive today? They should still be walking the Earth.
I agree and IMO, even very old species have highly evolved specialties which allowed them to "survive and procreate"There are. Everywhere. Everything you see is in principle in the process of changing from something to something else. Though there are some species that seem to have changed very little for a very long time, e.g cockroaches, crocodiles.
https://www.sharktrust.org/en/shark_originsSHARK EVOLUTION
Most scientists believe that sharks came into existence around 400 million years ago. That's 200 million years before the dinosaurs!
It's thought that they descended from a small leaf shaped fish that had no eyes, fins or bones. These fish then evolved into the 2 main groups of fish seen today. Bony fish (Osteichthyes) and cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes – the sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras).
Researchers have long observed that many insects groom themselves, and now they know why. When scientists restrained American cockroaches or prevented grooming by gluing mouthparts for 24 hours, they noticed a shiny, waxy buildup on the antennae that clogs the tiny pores that lead to odor-sensing cells.
Crocodiles could have survived mass extinction because of their mostly unknown ability to hibernate for years at a time. They are also smaller than dinosaurs which could also have allowed them to survive. “They are cold-blooded and cannot generate their own heat.