You say there is no evidence of evolution ("without back-up"). Have you read any books on evolution that weren't trying to tear it down? What about research papers concerning the lineage of horses or whales, which provide fossil evidence in great detail including location, depth, type of rock and relative time era? It is good to study your enemy if you plan on attacking or defending against him.
Shifting the burden of proof onto those that question or oppose your theories, when we are not teaching them as fact in the classroom is revealing. I have people far more intelligent and learned than I am on my side of the fence who are much more capable of understanding and exposing than I could ever be. I've not yet seen any photographic or realistic examples of evidence for evolution. Just words and animation. So until that day, I am happy with the examples of life and design that I see around me and what history has always shown to us. The land before time? That's another story and one that evolutionists seem more than happy to tell.
I really did not think I was shifting any burden of proof to you. I just asked if you knew what you were arguing against, not if you could prove what you were saying.
Wouldn't that be "The land before time measurement" since time began at "the beginning"? :-)
You guys have already decided that [ref: How God made life} by putting across assumptions as fact. I don't find assumptions enough to be called science. I think pre-conceived ideas should be kept out of it if one is going to be scientific and honest about it and you do find those people.
Again, you make the claim that these scientists assume the majority of what they are researching and then you say their method is not science. Yet you admit that you really haven't explored their research or their evidence. Basically, you are telling me that you think most biologists don't know how to do science. I think that is a bit of a bold accusation from someone in your position.
Creative enough to build a universe that runs on its own and, maybe, develops life on its own?
The Theory of Gravitational Attraction does not exclude God but it doesn't give Him credit for anything either. It just says "this is what we see happening and this may be how it works".
Evolution doesn't exclude God or give Him credit either. It just says "this is what we see happening and this may be how it works".
If it doesn't exclude God, then how can you say it doesn't give Him credit for anything? Isn't this a contradiction? How do you or them know this by the way? Since you're unable to test origins and exactly what took place, when it took place, how it took place. I fail to see how any of you can claim as such.
Those theories don't mention God at all, either favorably or unfavorably....that's what I meant. Yet you have no opposition to those theories, but evolution/abiogenesis theories do the same thing and you are vehemently opposed to them. Is this a contradiction?
Again the claim that we can't test the past. Do you truly believe this? If you believe that we can use scientific analysis of trace evidence at a murder scene to help convict a criminal, why can't we use trace evidence to help reconstruct what happened in the natural world in the past?
On the other hand, even if we can't test for a god's hand in the origins, does that mean we shouldn't look at origins at all?
Just as much as I do not believe in the horse evolution theory. Just as much as I do not believe in ape like creatures becoming man. You want me to give a description of something missing and this makes no sense. This to me is like saying "Could you provide me of a description of what the missing link between a bat and a horse would look like"?
Since you admit that you have no idea what the link between dinosaurs and birds, ape creatures and man, or reptiles and mammals should look like, how can you state so unequivocally that those links have not been found?
That's like saying you don't know what a wheel looks like but you know there are none in the room with you.
I'll give you an example: Taken from Creation magazine -
www.CreationOnTheWeb.com Vol. 30 No.2 Page 40.
SADDLE UP THE HORSE, IT'S OFF TO THE BAT CAVEThis was followed by a long and fairly well written article. For a write up on the original work, you can look here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1479866 Mammals can be divided in a number of groups:
* Monotremes
* Marsupials
* Eutheria
o Superorder Xenarthra
+ Order Pilosa
+ Order Cingulata
o Superorder Afrotheria
+ Order Proboscidea
o Superorder Laurasiatheria
+ Order Insectivora
+ Order Chiroptera
+ Order Carnivora
+ Order Perissodactyla
+ Order Artiodactyla
+ Order Cetacea
o Superorder Euarchontoglires
+ Order Rodentia
+ Order Lagomorpha
+ Order Primates
From what I read of the actual research write up, the superorder
Laurasiatheria was rearranged such that the orders
Chiroptera, Carnivora and the horse portion of
Perissodactyla were classified together and the cow and whale portion of
Perissodactyla were reclassified to become
Cetartiodactyla. The research showed that the common ancestor to bats, horses, cows, whales and dogs split to become a common ancestor to
Chiroptera, Carnivora and
Perissodactyla (now horse family only) and a common ancestor to cows and whales (
Cetartiodactyla). This does not present any real problem to the evolutionary theory and only a minor change to the mammal family tree.
Linear, I recall you mentioning something about the bible stating the earth is flat? Could you please provide me with chapter and verse? I have read through the bible a few times and never come across such a statement, yet I've heard evolutionists state this before and when asked, I've yet to see anybody give chapter and verse. My Father by the way trained to be a priest in the seminary and required much reading of the bible as you can imagine, he too has never heard the like. I do know there is a reference to the stars and the earth in the bible and even when the "advanced" wise men of the day, actually thought they could count them - the bible had long since proven that they were inumerable (like sands on the shore). Unfortunately in order to prove this, I too need to find chapter and verse to back that up.
I did not intend to say the Bible states the earth is flat. There are references to "pillars of the earth" and the "circle of the Earth with the dome of heaven above (Isiah?). There is also the temptation of Jesus where Satan took Jesus to a high mountain and showed Him the whole world, which you cannot physically do. Are these metaphor or artistic license? I don't know, so I will not make a call like that.
"Grains of Sand on the shore" and "as many as the stars in the heavens" are statements that God made to Abraham regarding his progeny. Since the description is about the same thing (Abraham's children), I think they can be equated. This does not mean they are infinite, just a whole lot. Frankly, I am not sure what you are getting at by bringing up that reference.
