[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[lordkalvan]

Then we can understand that you cannot impeach God's word. Very good.

You seem unable to understand my argument. Let me try again. You have not shown that either this is, indeed, God's word or that your interpretation of it is correct.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."​

God has spoken - where does that leave you my friend? Do you say in your heart there is no God?

Well, my friend, it leaves me pointing out that, whatever God may or may not be alleged to have said, it is your fingers doing the typing and telling us what God supposedly said.

 

[lordkalvan]

You again misunderstand - biological evolution is science - Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience and remains folly based on faith.

This is simply more rhetoric. Can you explain what 'biological evolution' is and how 'Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience' and 'folly based on faith'?

 

[zeke]

You seem unable to understand my argument.

I understand that you are not able to impeach God's word.

Well, my friend, it leaves me pointing out that, whatever God may or may not be alleged to have said, it is your fingers doing the typing and telling us what God supposedly said.

But God did say it - it is in written in the Book and it is easy to understand..."The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." What part of that statement stumps you?

 

[zeke]

This is simply more rhetoric. Can you explain what 'biological evolution' is and how 'Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience' and 'folly based on faith'?

Already done that - biological evolution is science. Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience. Belief in Darwinism is 'folly based on faith'. What part of science, pseudoscience, faith and folly do you not understand?

 

[Barbarian]

You can't present your 'numerous transitionals' can you?

I just showed you one of them. Notice that Australopithecines are transitional between apes and humans in many ways. I even offered to let you pick any two major groups, and you ran from the challenge.

There are none - right?

I don't think denial is going to help you at this point.

Regardless of your hands waving in the air Australopithecines is simply a dead-end ape line.

As you see, it's transitional in many ways. Why deny it? Do you think anyone will believe you against the evidence?

 

[Sparkey]

You know, Barbarian - when I look at the evidence you accept as substantial for your conclusions I see differences as well as similarities. In point of fact, when I take my kids to the zoo and we visit the 'monkey house' I don't get confused about who my children are at all. It's their occasional behavior that does causes doubt, but I never even look at diagrams of their bone structure to see if they are mine or not.

Hmmm... if the child and you both have skulls and if the child and you both have hips, well there you have it, Daddy! :shocked!

If we need no further proof for our conclusions than similarity then let me ask you, when will you start making your child support payments? (pardon me, sometimes I just can't resist)

 

[lordkalvan]

I understand that you are not able to impeach God's word.

You can repeat this as often as you wish, but it doesn't make it any more convincing.

But God did say it - it is in written in the Book and it is easy to understand..."The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." What part of that statement stumps you?

There is nothing to be stumped by except your continued belief that your assertion that God said something is sufficient to establish that this is so. How more clearly do you wish me to state my position?

 

[lordkalvan]

Already done that....

In which case can you link me to the relevant post, please, or at least provide the thread and post number so I can read your explanations? Thanks.

..biological evolution is science. Darwinian naturalism is pseudoscience. Belief in Darwinism is 'folly based on faith'.

Yes, you've already said that. What do you hope to establish by repeating it?

What part of science, pseudoscience, faith and folly do you not understand?

Your definitions, explanations and justification of these terms in the context in which you are using them, i.e. 'biological evolution' and 'Darwinian naturalism'.

 

[lordkalvan]

You know, Barbarian - when I look at the evidence you accept as substantial for your conclusions I see differences as well as similarities.

The differences are what make us different species; the physical similarities (and other evidence) are what determine our degree of relatedness.

In point of fact, when I take my kids to the zoo and we visit the 'monkey house' I don't get confused about who my children are at all.

Why would you? Monkeys wouldn't make the same mistake either.

It's their occasional behavior that does causes doubt, but I never even look at diagrams of their bone structure to see if they are mine or not.

Heh-heh. On a serious note, though, the behavioural similarities amongst the primates (including humans) is another factor that allows us to see the relatedness of primates.

Hmmm... if the child and you both have skulls and if the child and you both have hips, well there you have it, Daddy! :shocked!

If it was just the skulls, you might have a point, but even if it was only the skulls the similarities could not be ignored as inconsequential.

If we need no further proof for our conclusions than similarity then let me ask you, when will you start making your child support payments? (pardon me, sometimes I just can't resist)

Heh-heh, again. It's the degrees of similarity and the degrees of difference that are significant. Do you think the primates (other than humans) are related at all? If yes, why?

 

[Barbarian]

You know, Barbarian - when I look at the evidence you accept as substantial for your conclusions I see differences as well as similarities.

That's what transitionals are. They are partly like us, partly like ordinary apes.

In point of fact, when I take my kids to the zoo and we visit the 'monkey house' I don't get confused about who my children are at all. It's their occasional behavior that does causes doubt, but I never even look at diagrams of their bone structure to see if they are mine or not.

But an anatomist could do just that. Your particular bone structure is inherent in your children, as are your genes. It works the same way for species.

Hmmm... if the child and you both have skulls and if the child and you both have hips, well there you have it, Daddy!

What's important is that these intermediates were predicted by the theory long before they were found. And what's equally important, there are no intermediates were the theory says they shouldn't be.

If we need no further proof for our conclusions than similarity then let me ask you, when will you start making your child support payments? (pardon me, sometimes I just can't resist)

You allowed me to make a couple of important points here. Worth thinking about.

 

[zeke]

I just showed you one of them. Notice that Australopithecines are transitional between apes and humans in many ways.

No you simply presented similarities between man and a dead-end ape species - similarities that are easily explained by a common designer. You are making baseless assertions without proof from science and waiving your hands in the air. That is not how science works my friend. You have failed.

 

[zeke]

There is nothing to be stumped by except your continued belief that your assertion that God said something is sufficient to establish that this is so.

The facts remain - you cannot impeach God's word and His word is clear...

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."​

Where does that leave you my friend? Do you say in your heart there is no God?

 

[lordkalvan]

The facts remain - you cannot impeach God's word and His word is clear...

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."​

Where does that leave you my friend? Do you say in your heart there is no God?

See my previous replies. I think you have already been told by the mods that this part of the board is not the place to pester someone about their religious beliefs or lack of them. Perhaps you would be better advised to address those questions that are actually relevant to the OP?

 

[Sparkey]

What's important is that these intermediates were predicted by the theory long before they were found. And what's equally important, there are no intermediates were the theory says they shouldn't be.

But the evidence says they are your kids, B. Not nice to call your children "intermediates". Again, if we need no further proof for our conclusions than similarity, there can be no argument.

 

[Sparkey]

The facts remain - you cannot impeach God's word and His word is clear...

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
​

Where does that leave you my friend? Do you say in your heart there is no God?

That same verse convicts you and me also. Try not to "quote-mine" the bible and include the context because Ps 14:1 continues to say, "There is no one who does good."

 

[Free]

See my previous replies. I think you have already been told by the mods that this part of the board is not the place to pester someone about their religious beliefs or lack of them. Perhaps you would be better advised to address those questions that are actually relevant to the OP?

:yes

 

[jasoncran]

actually that verse should be stated the fool in his heart has said NO to god.

that would mean that believers can be applied under this!

 

[Barbarian]

But the evidence says they are your kids, B. Not nice to call your children "intermediates".

We all are, those of us who manage to pass on our genes.

Again, if we need no further proof for our conclusions than similarity, there can be no argument.

But as you have seen, it goes far beyond that.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I just showed you one of them. Notice that Australopithecines are transitional between apes and humans in many ways.

No

Sorry, denial won't help you. You're going to have to explain why they are precisely transitional in hips, skull, legs, feet, etc. Moreover, we can, by tracing ages, see that they became less and less apelike over time, until the distinction between Australopithecines and Homo becomes almost impossible to resolve.

you simply presented similarities between man and a dead-end ape species

Do you actually think, after the evidence was presented here, that anyone will actually believe that?

similarities that are easily explained by a common designer.

Wrong again. For example, the typical apes doesn't have hip, back, feet, or knee problems, because they are very well adapted to their way of life. We, as newly evolved bipeds, have all those problems, because we are only partially adapted to an upright posture, and some of the adaptations are not very effective.

No designer worthy of the name would do this.

You are making baseless assertions without proof from science

There's no point in denying the evidence. You can't hope to make a point, unless you find a rational way to explain it. And so far, hand-waving is all you have managed.

Do you think people haven't noticed?

 

[zeke]

Do you actually think, after the evidence was presented here, that anyone will actually believe that?

Again, the only thing you have presented are similarities between man and a dead-end ape species - both having the same Designer. Is that all you have?