Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:R, have you read how Middle Earth wants to ban the use of "hobbit"?

Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

crochet1949 wrote:So -- apparently -- at Some point in past history -- there was a hominid that turned into a People. That simply Does Not Happen.

And how exactly do you know that?

RickD wrote:Audie,

I'm glad you're finally catching on. You wrote:

During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged,...

Designs can come only from a designer.

Maybe your time here isn't only about arguing against God. It's nice to see a glimmer of hope that you can be reasonable, from time to time.

Maybe it's only your subconscious that prompted you to use the term "designer". Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.

Is it your subconscious that prompts you to be tiresome, or do you do it
from the frontal lobe?

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:R, have you read how Middle Earth wants to ban the use of "hobbit"?

Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:It makes no difference whether you understand the Gap Theory interpretation or not.

But I do understand the Gap Theory. Perfectly. And it's unsupported by evidence, logically inconsistent and theologically unsound.

It will still be a more believable theory than the theory of evolution is if taught side by side and based on much of the very same evidence you are going by.We just show how the evidence in the earth proves there was a former lost world that has been overlooked.

No, you don't. You mostly ask questions.

The evidence will show to an unbiased audience that there was a former world much,much different than this world we now live in now with much different kinds of life that lived in the former world.

That is obviously true, but neither the Gap Theory nor Evolution deny it. What Gap Theory insists upon, and Evolution denies is that the transition from one to the other was instantaneous.

This is what the fossils tell us,they do not and will tell nobody life evolves,it will be you adding your evolution imagination to the fossils.

No. The opposite is true. The discovery and investigation of fossils was an important part of the formulation of the theory of evolution, not the other way round.

I'd like to see how you explain looking at a dinosaur proves it evolved into a bird,because they show that they lived in a much different world than this world

With the greatest respect, this query, and it's the second time you've asked, shows very clearly how little you understand of the fossil record, which, since the fossil record seems to be your main source of scientific evidence, is a bit of a downer for your Gap Theory. Of course you cannot look at a dinosaur and 'prove' it evolved into a bird. Since the dinosaur came first, no 'vestige of the future' is embedded in it. It would be a bit more sensible to inquire how looking at a bird 'proves' (not a good word - avoid it, is my advice) that it evolved from a dinosaur. But you haven't. Twice.

This is why I accept the Gap Theory over all other interpretations.

You are very welcome to your beliefs, of course, however irrational.

Much that is so kind of pitiful of gapistry is contained in the word "facile".

"Former world" does at least concede that not all that has been can be compressed into the past 6000 years. Its a baby step, but a step.

One can, as I have and many another has, seen tropical fossils in the rock
far from where they could live now, seen fossils of sea creatures thousands of miles from the ocean.

For those who have not gome completely insane and think that a flood put
seashells on Mr Everest, it is clear evidence, proof, that things were once very different. I've seen bits of sea shell come up from an oil well drilling 3000 ft down in Kansas. Something has changed.

Where facile / bone deep ignorance comes in is thinking that there's only
two "worlds". The one now, and the former one.

Our benighted gappist might stir himself to to to a library (holding a book is so much nicer and more satisfying that going clickety click, though for the lazy and preferentially facile, too much trouble)

But regardless.. if one were to look through a book that shows the dominant life forms through time, the life on land or the sea from different eras,
the idea of two "worlds' becomes so obviously silly and shallow that even the
most determined-to-be-dumb cant help to be shaken a bit. Possibly, even, stirred.

In there, one finds some rather abrupt changes, such as the one that ended the dinosaur reign. The Permian likewise ended with the die off of most
life forms.

There has not been a mass extinction in the past 65 million years, unless one looks at the one mankind is causing now.

No "world wide flood" in there. No trace to be found.

Why do people insist on trying to peddle their ideas when they've not a clue what they are talking about? Such a lack of respect, for audience or themselves!

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

I'm glad you're finally catching on. You wrote:

During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged,...

Designs can come only from a designer.

Maybe your time here isn't only about arguing against God. It's nice to see a glimmer of hope that you can be reasonable, from time to time.

Maybe it's only your subconscious that prompted you to use the term "designer". Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.

Is it your subconscious that prompts you to be tiresome, or do you do it
from the frontal lobe?

Completely from conscious thought that evolution has made me do. It's just my neurons. I have no control over it.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:R, have you read how Middle Earth wants to ban the use of "hobbit"?

Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

Audie wrote:
Why do people insist on trying to peddle their ideas when they've not a clue what they are talking about? Such a lack of respect, for audience or themselves!

Now you know how we feel when we read your posts.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
Why do people insist on trying to peddle their ideas when they've not a clue what they are talking about? Such a lack of respect, for audience or themselves!

Now you know how we feel when we read your posts.

Ha. Stunned incomprehension of that which went over your head
is what you feel, tho I suppose that in that state, you can easily
mistake it for something else.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:R, have you read how Middle Earth wants to ban the use of "hobbit"?

Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

I've seen people at wally world who looked less human than either of those hobbits.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:R, have you read how Middle Earth wants to ban the use of "hobbit"?

Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

I've seen people at wally world who looked less human than either of those hobbits.

If anything, Walmart is proof that humans have not evolved.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

I'm glad you're finally catching on. You wrote:

During that time, the fossil record clearly shows that some successful designs have remained more or less unchanged,...

Designs can come only from a designer.

Maybe your time here isn't only about arguing against God. It's nice to see a glimmer of hope that you can be reasonable, from time to time.

Maybe it's only your subconscious that prompted you to use the term "designer". Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.

Is it your subconscious that prompts you to be tiresome, or do you do it
from the frontal lobe?

Completely from conscious thought that evolution has made me do. It's just my neurons. I have no control over it.

Blaming your genetics for your personality. Krink blames me for his moral failings. Phil blames me for anything he can dream up.

Oh, speaking of a step in the right direction, you do recognize you are tiresome, but it will be hard to treat it since it is hard wired.
Have you considered prayer, for a miracle?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: Notice how the illustrator made the "hobbit" look? That looks like a human?

You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

I've seen people at wally world who looked less human than either of those hobbits.

If anything, Walmart is proof that humans have not evolved.

Ha, wrong again. It demonstrates what happens when you remove selective
pressure.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
You think floresiensis was not human? Why?

That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

I've seen people at wally world who looked less human than either of those hobbits.

If anything, Walmart is proof that humans have not evolved.

Ha, wrong again. It demonstrates what happens when you remove selective
pressure.

More likely Walmart is just evidence that inbreeding still exists.

Hey wait. I shop at Walmart. I guess I've been hoist by my own petard.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote: That wasn't my point. I was just saying how the artist made the hobbit look like it's not human.

I've seen people at wally world who looked less human than either of those hobbits.

If anything, Walmart is proof that humans have not evolved.

Ha, wrong again. It demonstrates what happens when you remove selective
pressure.

More likely Walmart is just evidence that inbreeding still exists.

Hey wait. I shop at Walmart. I guess I've been hoist by my own petard.

Oh dear. I hope you at least married a cousin, not your sister.