Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Godscreated]

This is a lie many animals have been found at the wrong levels of the so called geologic column, a column that does not exist in consistence around the world. In places it doesn't even exist in a way to be identified with others.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating this, instead of asserting it. Citation, please.

The burden of proof belongs to you, you say you do not have to disprove something you do not believe exist, but you will dodge the same responsibility you place upon me. Double standards do not fly with me, so get busy showing me the geologic column exist the same world wide and that no fossils are found out of place or stop your whining.

There have been many animals found that do not belong in certain layers, so speculation is all evolutionary science has.

You're welcome to provide evidence of this whenever you like. I'd certainly be open to seeing it; I don't think I've ever heard this particular argument before.

It's your belief and the responsibility falls upon you to prove what you say, by the way that is quite common knowledge, to those who search.

Actually a world wide flood would be a better observation of the geological column and the fossils found.

Why do you think that? Especially when there are consistent layers in certain areas like the Loess Plateau that contain fossil soils and windblown sediments that could not exist in flood conditions. Simply put, the flood could never have been worldwide, and area-specific floods aren't uncommon, or what you're asking for.

I do not see why those sediments couldn't of occurred either before or after the flood. I'm not familiar with that particular place, what I do know about floods of great enormity they do not lay down equal layers of sediment and the strip other areas clean so there is little to no sediment.

The fossil record has never nor will it ever prove evolution.

Because you say so? Hell, I said it earlier, but then I was being realistic, where you're just being dismissive. The fossil record won't "prove" evolution on its own,

This better for you, the fossil record doesn't even suggest evolution.

but then, we aren't just considering it in isolation either; there are many other fields of study contributing evidence to this case, and the fossil record is one part of that spectrum of evidence that, taken together, is conclusive proof for the existence of evolution.

If you put together all my statements you would notice that I deny each of your points, seems to me I was taking in all you presented. Evolution has never and never will be proven, why do you wish to go against many of the leading evolutionary scientist that have stated it's not be proven. They're part of your bunch why do you not know this.

Is it, no what would you call finding many fossils in the wrong layers in the so called column, something like Christian scientist are sabotaging the dig sites. There is not one bit of proof that evolution is true, until that time if you don't mind I'm not buying it.

What could I call it? Well, I looked it up: I'd call it insignificant, and better explained by other things. The creationist case for these fossils in incorrect layers is some 200 apparent fossils, versus the estimated 250 million catalogued fossils found in the correct layer: if your 200 are evidence against evolution to you, doesn't it then follow that the amazing majority is evidence for evolution and against creationism? Or are you only willing to accept that evidence which squares with what you already believe, and special plead away the rest?

Far more than any 200, I don't even know where you got that number. It's like this, you call fossils in the wrong layers for evolutionary science insignificant, does that mean you are fine with dismissing things that do not add up to keep alive this delusional fantasy. When fossils that are millions of years different from the other fossils and locked into the same so called geologic strata insignificant, I mean really, whats up with that.

Besides, there are reasonable explanations for those 200 fossils of yours, that don't rely on a leap into magic.

Surely you can do better than this, and as I said above 200 isn't even close.

None, zip, nothing.

That's not what the science says.

There is no proof, how many times am I going to have to say this. Natural selection is not evolution and has never been shown to lead to a change from one animal to another.

Now it's species transition, yesterday it was natural selection, the two are not the same.

That's true, but yesterday you weren't talking about natural selection with me, but you did mention kinds, and assert that species were a conspiracy against you. That's why I bring it up.

I did not say it was a conspiracy against me, I said it was the only way evolutionary science could keep evolution alive after Christian scientist pinned down evolutionary scientist on macro evolution.

It was used then to denote kinds such as the Canine. Then evolutionary scientist used it to divide the Canine into different species, and to this day they are all still Dogs.

Linnean Taxonomy, which is the basis for the modern system, finds its roots in 1735, and featured a full complement of classes, right down to the species level, including the binomial "genus/species" naming scheme we still use today. It was not used to differentiate kinds alone, but rather individual species in the same way that we do today. In fact, what you claim is literally impossible, since the initial Linnean taxa classified all birds in the same category, and then differentiated further down into species: your "they're still birds!" style logic is impossible with this fact in mind.

That was called sub-species, if I'm not mistaken.

Evidence, good joke . I will not retract the truth, it's your burden to prove evolution, you've made the assertion, I do not have to prove anything, your burden of proof not mine.

I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about your claim that the idea of species is a scientific conspiracy invented to defend evolution, when now we both understand that the concept predates evolution, and does so in its modern form by at least a century.

Evolution was being presented before then and so were long ages and yes my answer was to evolution, you made that very clear.

Just because some scientist makes a claim and describes something with no proof means absolutely nothing. Speculation is all that evolutionary science has, nothing more. Species to species transitions have never been observed, if it were so, the whole world would be abuzz. I do not have to use anything for a rebuttal, the burden of proof is in your court.

GC

Species to species transitions have been observed: in my first response to you I pointed to the Cope's Gray Treefrog, which is a separate species from the Gray Treefrog, having evolved that way via an autopolyploidy event, within a relatively small number of generations. Your response was that it didn't count as they were both still frogs, but that's not what a species is. They are two separate species of frog, and speciation in that sense is what evolution describes.

I used species in my reply for your benefit, and they are still frogs, they will always be frogs. They will not evolve into another kind of animal. For evolution to be realistic some animals will have to become totally different ones, that has never been demonstrated, proven or otherwise. If evolution was real why do we still have the so called living fossils and all other life forms have evolved into different animals, heck they haven't even changed.

You could at least keep track of what is being said to you, I made that pretty clear in the post you're responding to. I practically spelled it out.

I'm keeping track, and I've yet to see the first bit of proof from you that evolution has ever occurred, not natural selection, a change of one animal into a totally different one.

GC

---

And here we continue to see the dishonesty and ignorance of the creationist.

You're full of smart remarks, how about some proof that animals change into different animals.

---

Why is this kinda' crap all you ever offer to a discussion, if this is the extent of your best stay away.

GC

Just calling them as I see them. If you don't like your willful ignorance being called out, do something to fix it.

You're blind as a bat.