Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Revelation777]

Me + this thread =

Anyone else ready to move of to Rev's second argument so we can speed up him leaving the forums?

looks like that poor thing may of evolved from a bird,

[Esquilax]

there is no such thing as an unbias reliable source. If you think your avg. scientist or professor is not bias, HA!HA!HA! Do you know that most universities if a professor even hints that they believe in creationism that they will be brow beaten to the point where they will be forced to resign. Watch Ben Stein's movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.

I've said this to you in a thread before, but this line of reasoning is completely ridiculous; science works on evidence and demonstration, and the kind of demonstration that would prove or even hint at creation would overturn so much of modern science that it would be Nobel Prize material, not to mention all the money and fame one would receive from religious organizations. Look back though the history of science, Rev; the people who propose and prove revolutionary theories are lauded, and the only censure comes from the church, who used to burn such heretics...

[pocaracas]

Drich: possiable
Rev: May of evolved

Who's next?

[downbeatplumb]

Rev lost this argument pages ago so why is it rumbling on.
Time to move to the next one.

[Confused Ape]

I commend you for studying the subject. However, there is a book that explains the origins of life. That Book says that God created the heavens and the earth. Your books say differently. They both can't be right.

Umpteen millions of Christians believe that both are right. Their view is that science reveals how God created the heavens, the Earth and life.

You keep ignoring everything I've posted about the BioLogos viewpoint so here's another one - How could humans have evolved and still be created in the “Image of God”?

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. Thus, BioLogos believes that God created humanity using the process of evolution and endowed us with his image. Both views of the image of God (“spiritual capacity” and “commission”) are compatible with the scientific evidence for evolution, and both views are affirmed by individuals in the BioLogos community. In fact, the two views are not mutually exclusive.
If the image of God refers to our spiritual capacities, God could still have used the natural process of evolution to create our bodies and human abilities. God could have used a miraculous process to create our spiritual capacities, or used some combination of natural processes and divine revelation to develop these capacities. Either way, God is the creator of our whole selves, including both our physical and spiritual aspects.

I think the real problem with the evolution/religion conflict is that some theists regard evolution as atheist dogma which is used to promote the idea that God doesn't exist. Science can't prove that God doesn't exist and it can't disprove the idea that evolution is the way God did it. All it can do is disprove some ideas about God such as he created the universe 6,000 years ago.

These are Richard Dawkins's concluding thoughts in that debate he had with Francis Collins.

God vs Science

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

And now to Genesis 1

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis doesn't tell us that -

1: The greater light to govern the day (our sun) is one of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

2: Our sun isn't the only one with planets.

3: There are billions of galaxies in the universe.

Does this prove that God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe and everything in it? No. All it means is that if there is a God who spoke to humans he didn't intend the Bible to be regarded as a science textbook.

[Revelation777]

I commend you for studying the subject. However, there is a book that explains the origins of life. That Book says that God created the heavens and the earth. Your books say differently. They both can't be right.

Umpteen millions of Christians believe that both are right. Their view is that science reveals how God created the heavens, the Earth and life.

You keep ignoring everything I've posted about the BioLogos viewpoint so here's another one - How could humans have evolved and still be created in the “Image of God”?

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order. Thus, BioLogos believes that God created humanity using the process of evolution and endowed us with his image. Both views of the image of God (“spiritual capacity” and “commission”) are compatible with the scientific evidence for evolution, and both views are affirmed by individuals in the BioLogos community. In fact, the two views are not mutually exclusive.
If the image of God refers to our spiritual capacities, God could still have used the natural process of evolution to create our bodies and human abilities. God could have used a miraculous process to create our spiritual capacities, or used some combination of natural processes and divine revelation to develop these capacities. Either way, God is the creator of our whole selves, including both our physical and spiritual aspects.

I think the real problem with the evolution/religion conflict is that some theists regard evolution as atheist dogma which is used to promote the idea that God doesn't exist. Science can't prove that God doesn't exist and it can't disprove the idea that evolution is the way God did it. All it can do is disprove some ideas about God such as he created the universe 6,000 years ago.

These are Richard Dawkins's concluding thoughts in that debate he had with Francis Collins.

God vs Science

DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.

And now to Genesis 1

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

Genesis doesn't tell us that -

1: The greater light to govern the day (our sun) is one of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

2: Our sun isn't the only one with planets.

3: There are billions of galaxies in the universe.

Does this prove that God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe and everything in it? No. All it means is that if there is a God who spoke to humans he didn't intend the Bible to be regarded as a science textbook.

This is a twisting going on here. In Genesis 1:1 that covers that God made everything. When the author gets into more detail the sun and moon come into focus. We can't assume that the Lord only made the sun and this galaxy. The author simple brought the focus on this galaxy.

As far as moon being a light it is. The text doesn't say that the moon produces its own light, but it is a light because it reflects it. How many times have you heard the term moonlight.

[Angrboda]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

I suspect he doesn't even really know.

[DarkHorse]

Umpteen millions of Christians believe that both are right. Their view is that science reveals how God created the heavens, the Earth and life.

You keep ignoring everything I've posted about the BioLogos viewpoint so here's another one - How could humans have evolved and still be created in the “Image of God”?


I think the real problem with the evolution/religion conflict is that some theists regard evolution as atheist dogma which is used to promote the idea that God doesn't exist. Science can't prove that God doesn't exist and it can't disprove the idea that evolution is the way God did it. All it can do is disprove some ideas about God such as he created the universe 6,000 years ago.

These are Richard Dawkins's concluding thoughts in that debate he had with Francis Collins.

God vs Science


And now to Genesis 1


Genesis doesn't tell us that -

1: The greater light to govern the day (our sun) is one of billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

2: Our sun isn't the only one with planets.

3: There are billions of galaxies in the universe.

Does this prove that God doesn't exist and didn't create the universe and everything in it? No. All it means is that if there is a God who spoke to humans he didn't intend the Bible to be regarded as a science textbook.

This is a twisting going on here. In Genesis 1:1 that covers that God made everything. When the author gets into more detail the sun and moon come into focus. We can't assume that the Lord only made the sun and this galaxy. The author simple brought the focus on this galaxy.

As far as moon being a light it is. The text doesn't say that the moon produces its own light, but it is a light because it reflects it. How many times have you heard the term moonlight.

Just doesn't get it.

[Simon Moon]

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

I've been wondering the same thing.

So please, Rev777, describe what you are expecting to see in a transitional form so we can all be debating the same thing.

Thanks