PLEASE: birds, bees, flowers and trees!

[Haipule]

Really? Do you really think a flower (as we know it to be today) could possibly exist without a bee? Flowers, as we know them today: NEVER existed in the geologic timescale until very recently! Birds, bees, flowers and trees could NEVER exist unless they all appeared all at the same time in geologic history! It's called: commensurability. The Genesis account says they did: and they do exist! How then mighty atheist: do they exist?

I'm sure you have a great answer to this Genesis only fact WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE! Except, "well , they're here aren't they?"

---

Truth is, not even modern man could exist, at that time, without that garden! Or, even now!

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, seriously, read up on coevolution. Scientists have actually managed to get a good idea of how bees and flowers evolved from wasps and non-flowering plants. And it turns out that birds are irrelevant to this conversation, since the Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record before the the appearance of flowers (about 150 million years ago), and trees over 200 million years prior to that. I can only assume that you put those in there specifically because of the song.

[Haipule]

Okay, seriously, read up on coevolution. Scientists have actually managed to get a good idea of how bees and flowers evolved from wasps and non-flowering plants. And it turns out that birds are irrelevant to this conversation, since the Archaeopteryx appears in the fossil record before the the appearance of flowers (about 150 million years ago), and trees over 200 million years prior to that. I can only assume that you put those in there specifically because of the song.

Seriously? "Coevolution" is somehow the true science of commensurability? Dude! Just admit that flowers, as we know them today, and as science observes them today, is new on the geologic timescale--you can not deny this!! Do you think they EVER existed before--they didn't! No geologic proof dude! You would say, "coevolution". Do you, somehow say, "birds are irrelevant"? "Trees", I said as if I mentioned them in passing? 

I support the very, very long existence of trees! Long before modern man! I am NOT YEC by any means because that is stupidity!

All nature and natural--which can't be denied, by anyone, whether, theistic or agnostic, whether YEC or physicist, can not exist beyond nature itself! Or, do you defy nature? Does God? Is God "supernatural" or, preternatural?

Nature is complex, but not complicated. Nature does not support anyone's calculous! Nature does not own a calculator!

[no one]

Funny you should mention that. I just got off the phone with nature, and by its calculations, you are a ginormous 8008.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Really? Do you really think a flower (as we know it to be today) could possibly exist without a bee? Flowers, as we know them today: NEVER existed in the geologic timescale until very recently! Birds, bees, flowers and trees could NEVER exist unless they all appeared all at the same time in geologic history! It's called: commensurability. The Genesis account says they did: and they do exist! How then mighty atheist: do they exist?

I'm sure you have a great answer to this Genesis only fact WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE! Except, "well , they're here aren't they?"

---

Truth is, not even modern man could exist, at that time, without that garden! Or, even now!

Flowering plants, also called angiosperms, originated at least 140 million years ago. The oldest flower fossils documented, however, are about 130 million years old.

The critters that came to exploit angiosperms evolved from earlier critters that didn't. This isn't hard.

[Mermaid]

Flowers, as we know them today: NEVER existed in the geologic timescale until very recently! Birds, bees, flowers and trees could NEVER exist unless they all appeared all at the same time in geologic history! 

This is patently false and if you actually make an effort to find the facts on this, you will understand that it's false.

[LadyForCamus]

Classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

“I can’t fathom how this happened naturally, therefore it couldn’t have.”

If you’re going to debate atheists about the existence or god, I highly recommend you brush up on the common fallacies used by theists, and try to sidestep them as much as possible.

[LadyForCamus]

How about you guys do some of the work for once?

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/EN...lacies.htm

[Abaddon_ire]

Really? Do you really think a flower (as we know it to be today) could possibly exist without a bee? Flowers, as we know them today: NEVER existed in the geologic timescale until very recently! Birds, bees, flowers and trees could NEVER exist unless they all appeared all at the same time in geologic history! It's called: commensurability. The Genesis account says they did: and they do exist! How then mighty atheist: do they exist?

I'm sure you have a great answer to this Genesis only fact WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE! Except, "well , they're here aren't they?"

---

Truth is, not even modern man could exist, at that time, without that garden! Or, even now!

Sure, but the same argument can be applied to flesh eating bacteria, or eye eating worms. Your god created those too, right?

[Rev. Rye]

Classic argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

“I can’t fathom how this happened naturally, therefore it couldn’t have.”

If you’re going to debate atheists about the existence or god, I highly recommend you brush up on the common fallacies used by theists, and try to sidestep them as much as possible.

If he insists on taking the path of most resistance in attempting to reach us (seriously, the science we have not only does not point to a creator, it actively undermines the particular idea of God many Christians believe in), I can’t be sure he’s going to be adept at sidestepping the major logical traps.