Thankyou, Michael,

An interesting read.


Hope you don't mind, but I think I shall stay up here in the trees, and watch the fossils and the gospels fly from here.

I am not great at being hit in the head with a gospel first thing in the morning..

I agree this is an interesting read...thanks for sharing it Michael...

Interesting how some people are so afraid of perspectives though ... there is nothing that says they have to change their belief and yet the aggressive posturing ensues ... and the baiting ...

so much for Saint Francis huh


I think I'll hang out in the trees with Jess....with my trusty BS repelling umbrella...

If evolution were true, there would be links but there are no links.

If the theory of evolution were only that organisms came from other organisms then it would be fact. This is true. The original creation existed, and it appears to be upgraded from time to time through the ages.

This does not conflict with the Bible. The Scriptures show that there was a world before the age of man and that it was ruled by the devil a great dragon. That world was destroyed by a war in heaven and the next one is made warm blooded. There is no evolution between the cold blooded world that was, and ours today.

Further, there is development and atrophy in all creatures. But there is no evolution to become another kind of creature. As the Bible and science agree. Kind reproduces with its own kind.

Consider:

The Monarch butterfly. The caterpillar eats poison. The first time it tried to do this, it died. No more evolution. It had to be created able to eat this poisonous milkweed that protects it from birds later in life when it would be able to fly.

The caterpillar is blind and breathes through is pores. It eats several times its own weight until a certain point. Then it
attaches itself to a branch and creates a cocoon. Inside the caterpillar dies, and a separate set of cells feed off the dying caterpillar. Those cells turn into a beautiful butterfly that breathes has wings flies above all the rest of the animals and now fertilizes the plants instead of eating them.

This could never evolve. The extra cells would be necessary before a cocoon ever existed. They would die with the first caterpillar. The first time the caterpillar came out of the cocoon, it would have to be complete. It would have to have wings that could fly. It would have to have a trachea to deal with the oxygen it would now need. It all has to work at one time. It cannot have pieces of wings that don't work, part of a breathing device.

If evolution were true, then each time an aspect of the process occurred, if it were not complete, then it would not serve the creature. For example, if a wing began to form it would only inhibit the creature from fully functioning, and thus would be be eliminated --that is if evolution were really true.

Pick any creature. The wood pecker, without the bone structure and insulation in his head, the first time he pecked at a tree would have a world class headache and never do it again. But the special head gear he has would never develop is he did not peck at trees. So, it all has to be there at once or it doesn't work.

These things are from the Creator. The Butterfly pictures God's plan for man. We are blind, have no air (spirit), we are greedy, and selfish. We attach ourselves to the branch, Jesus Christ, and then we die and lie in our graves. We are raised from the grave, and we are new creatures that no longer take from others, but give to others. We will be able to live above the rest, fly as it were, and have keen insight.

This Monarch is not a product of evolution, but is the fulfillment of Romans

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Art

fact, or qualified assumptive reasoning defined as fact?

Now fact itself becomes center stage in the debate.

A consensus is due and in order for proclamation of terms used in concert, context and characterization.

The possibilities are endless in character.


Charity is love is compassion and sympathy, right? and the English language is supposed to offer descriptive clarity?
Isn't that why it is the official language of International Law?

There is not one argument that settles another.

There is not one fact that is insulated in irrefutability.

Even emotions are deemed spirits by many.

Facts like emotions run hot and cold just like water out of a faucet, but not all faucets are dual feed delivery systems of water, let alone exclusively for the flow of water.

There is nowhere to draw the line.

Free will is King?

Where is the evidence of truthful autonomy?

Define truth.

amazing.

wow








what?

If change is a constant, why can't things evolve?
Why does it HAVE to be so absolute with some?
Does anyone have a definate answer, or just what they believe?

I believe my house was built in 1909 from some "evidence" I've found under the floorboards, the walls and up in the rafters. Will I ever know for sure? Who cares!

I also believe it's late enough in the day to have a beer!

You can't say that. Evolution can get rid of them. If evolution doesn't like them, they can evolve away.

But you know,I rather think not. If evolution is true, then pimples evolved! Perhaps they are the next step in man's evolution. Eventually we will all become giant pimples.

Grief!

Art

So you just want to know why everyone can't be right (ie think like you)? I don't know man, that's a hard one.

oh gawd!

I'm with you! SpiderCMB shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion. Hey, can't someone write another poem about murdering him?

Maybe we're ALL wrong! Did you ever think about that?

I'll drink to that.

The reason it matters is if we evolved and were not the result of a creator God, then there is no purpose or plan for life. It is meaningless.

Further, if we evolved and no God created us, then there is no authority for any morality. We can do what ever we like. Then there is no difference between the teachings of Christ and Saddam Hussein.

This is of great danger to society. What is so sad, is that evolution is not proven to be a fact. It is based on the fact that mutations can occur, but it losses all credibility when it comes to the details of how this might work in reality, and there are no links.

They claim birds came from lizards but there is no link.

Imagine the first time a lizard developed an appendage. I would not be a wing, not be positioned in the right place, and not be of any benefit to the lizard. He would be at a disadvantage in any fight with another lizard because he would have to drag around his appendage. Thus, if evolution were true, it would tend to evolve the appendage away. Without the vision and insight that would be necessary to conceive of a bird with wings and tail feathers to steer, blind evolution would simply eliminate anything new.

It all has to be there at once. Even a full fledged bird that evolved from a lizard would have to know how to fly. Those that migrate would need maps. It is all silly confused thinking of men who fear the idea of a creator God.

Art
Art

About those 'gaps'...

Creationists often state categorically that "there are no transitional fossils". This is simply not true.There are abundant transitional fossils of both the "chain of genera" type and the "species-to-species transition" type. There are documented speciations that cross genus lines and family lines. The interpretation of that fact I leave up to you. You might disagree with my conclusions, and you can choose the one you think is best, (or even develop another one).

But you cannot simply say that there are no transitional fossils, because there are.

As Gould said (1994): "The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionists. Such transitional forms are scarce, to be sure, and for two sets of reasons - geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium and transition within small populations of limited geological extenet). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology."

And does it even matter? What is true for me is not necessarily true for another ... THAT'S AWESOME!!!!




When have I ever said that you are not entitled to your opinion Spider? It's never happened ...


We just aren't likely to agree on much ... and that is just fine

as you can see by the double signing of my name, I am beside myself!

Supposed to be funny,

Art

I don't agree. But, at this point, I think they are look alike fossils. That is there were some creatures that looked a certain way, and then some other creatures that looked like them but looked like others too. There is no real links between dissimilar creatures.

But, I know that I don't know everything. I can learn, so, I am agreeable to you showing us some pictures of lizards that have links to birds.

Thanks,

Art

I'm in total agreement with you Turtle.

I believe in both. Evolution and creationism.

Evolution was simply the method that was used to create.

It's not a big deal.

The one's who cause the arguments to be Creationism Versus Evolution, are the radical fanaticals who insist on taking a ‘perfectly’ literal interpretation of the Bible.

Personally, I don’t believe in the Bible anyway, but that’s totally irrelevant.

Those who do believe in the Bible could easily accept that it is an allegorical text.

In fact, these radical fanaticals are always two-faced. They want their cake and eat it to at every turn of the page of their book.

For example, they INSIST on a perfectly verbatim literal interpretation of the Bible in things like the 6 days of creation, and even in things like the idea the Noah’s flood actually happened.

However, then when they get to the part where Jesus proclaims that everything he prophesied will talk place within the current generation the quickly drop the verbatim approach to the wording of the Bible and immediately embrace a totally abstract wishy-washy, anything-goes attitude to slide by this apparent discrepancy.

Funny just how two-faced these fanatical radicals can be. I’ve lost all faith in anything they have to say.

As far as I’m concerned, if there is any truth to the Bible at all, it must ALL be allegorical. The six days of creation could have been billions of our years. The story about the flood of Noah was merely an allegory to simply tell us that no matter how evil the world becomes God will always be there to lift us up and save us. We’re supposed to be Noah! Not the sinful fools of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Why do the readers of the Bible always imagine that they are one of the sinful fools?

When I read the bible I always identify with the saints.

I could imagine myself being Moses (not one of the masses), or Noah (not one of the masses), or Jesus himself (not one of the masses!). I guess it’s just a natural tendency of mine to always imagine that I’m supporting the hero and I just can’t imagine myself being one of the stupid sinful masses.

Funny how different people read the book from different perspectives. I guess it just shows how they think of themselves.

http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_sorting

Oh, by the way,… nice OP Creative! It really spoke to the truth of the issues.

That it does.