Earth without gods or demons.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You seem to miss the point, I know there are light sensitive spots, never
once did I deny that; however, what I am suggesting you've no way of
knowing if they were put there by design or through evolution just by
looking at them! Simply saying they were there millions of years ago only
means they were there millions of years ago, it does not mean that they
just showed up through some quirk of random changes in DNA.

He doesn't even know they were there millions of years ago. It could have been thousands of years ago for all he knows. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree my position is the one we see by direct observation.

I'll take that as a yes. I wasn't going to follow it with "Surely then you must accept X piece of evidence.", given that you'd dispute the conclusions drawn from it. However I think that you'd also have to accept that while the biblical account is evidence, it is not empirical evidence. Documentary evidence is a different type of evidence. Your justification for regarding the Bible as evidence for prehistoric events is something along the lines that God guided the Bible writers. Since you regard God as infallible, the Bible must also be for you, at least the parts meant to be read literally. This creates a fundamental point of departure for us as it means that you weight the evidence rather differently to the way I do.

Take prehistoric to mean antedeluvian, I don't want to get into a debate about whether pre-history existed.

Just an observation about your post at the top of the previous page (page 5) where you mentioned that there was no continuous record from the human-chimp common ancestor to either us or the chimps. In terms of gaps in the evolutionary narrative it's actually on the chimp side that they are more glaring. There are quite a number of fossils of extinct human species, or more precisely hominini. Every fossil hunters dream is to find a missing link in the human evolutionary chain, so that has been what has been searched for. The problem is that what would scientifically be more important is to find chimp missing links. That's the part of the story with more gaps in.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'll take that as a yes. I wasn't going to follow it with "Surely then you must accept X piece of evidence.", given that you'd dispute the conclusions drawn from it. However I think that you'd also have to accept that while the biblical account is evidence, it is not empirical evidence. Documentary evidence is a different type of evidence. Your justi ...[text shortened]... more important is to find chimp missing links. That's the part of the story with more gaps in.

Chimps were created chimps so why should you believe there are missing links there?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'll take that as a yes. I wasn't going to follow it with "Surely then you must accept X piece of evidence.", given that you'd dispute the conclusions drawn from it. However I think that you'd also have to accept that while the biblical account is evidence, it is not empirical evidence. Documentary evidence is a different type of evidence. Your justi ...[text shortened]... more important is to find chimp missing links. That's the part of the story with more gaps in.

"Your justification for regarding the Bible as evidence for prehistoric events is something along the lines that God guided the Bible writers."

Care to show me where I did that?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'll take that as a yes. I wasn't going to follow it with "Surely then you must accept X piece of evidence.", given that you'd dispute the conclusions drawn from it. However I think that you'd also have to accept that while the biblical account is evidence, it is not empirical evidence. Documentary evidence is a different type of evidence. Your justi ...[text shortened]... more important is to find chimp missing links. That's the part of the story with more gaps in.

We have talked about flies where we started with flies and ended with flies.
Any example of evolution with living creatures always has us starting with
some creature and ending with that same creature just a slight difference
as there was with the fly. If you want to talk about major changes with
evolution that can only done when someone says this was related to that, it
does not mean it was, we just have to accept it was.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He doesn't even know they were there millions of years ago. It could have been thousands of years ago for all he knows. 😏

What you really mean is thousands of years ago to satisfy your obsession.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What you really mean is thousands of years ago to satisfy your obsession.

Nope. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
No one knows if a light sensitive anything ever just sprang up, but it fits the
theory so it must be true,...

So if a light sensitive spot appears you then have to have several things
occur that make that spot useful. Think of it as a car radio antenna, what
good would having something sensitive to receive radio signals if there was
nothing about the ...[text shortened]... that understood radio signals, if it did recognize
them it would need to in some useful means!

You know, you're not convincing anyone by arguing against the same old tired caricature of the theory of evolution that every other ID apologist has already set up and blown down. You're just showing yourself to be made of the same pathetic strawman-hating stuff as atheists who rail against "that bearded granddad in the clouds".

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
You know, you're not convincing anyone by arguing against the same old tired caricature of the theory of evolution that every other ID apologist has already set up and blown down. You're just showing yourself to be made of the same pathetic strawman-hating stuff as atheists who rail against "that bearded granddad in the clouds".

Just because you want to ignore issues with the theory doesn't mean that
they shouldn't be brought up! People who want to believe in evolution will
see what they want and ignore the rest. That doesn't mean both sides of
the issue shouldn't be brought up.

Those that wish to call God "that bearded granddad in the clouds." can
present their points of view no matter how often we have seen their
points.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Just because you want to ignore issues with the theory doesn't mean that
they shouldn't be brought up! People who want to believe in evolution will
see what they want and ignore the rest. That doesn't mean both sides of
the issue shouldn't be brought up.

Those that wish to call God "that bearded granddad in the clouds." can
present their points of view no matter how often we have seen their
points.

Just because a theory may not be totally correct doesn't mean it is at least partially correct, the partially correct part being 1, the Earth is billions of years old and 2 Evolution is the study of how life CHANGED not how life GOT HERE. and 3 there is solid evidence of intermediary forms where one form changed to another over time as read by the fossil evidence. That has been SO proven so many times I am surprised there are still people who fight those facts.

The only way you can fight those facts is to cite the bible which was written 100% by humans with no help from a deity. That is clear by the fact your so-called god was given human attributes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just because a theory may not be totally correct doesn't mean it is at least partially correct, the partially correct part being 1, the Earth is billions of years old and 2 Evolution is the study of how life CHANGED not how life GOT HERE. and 3 there is solid evidence of intermediary forms where one form changed to another over time as read by the fossil ev ...[text shortened]... h no help from a deity. That is clear by the fact your so-called god was given human attributes.

1. No, it is not a fact that the earth is billions of years. We can only account for a few thousand years of earth's history.

2. No, evolution is not a study of how life changed, but a study of how living thing make minor variations and speculation on how living things might have changed.

3. No, there is not solid evidence of intermediary forms where one form changed to another over time other than the decay process.

None of what you said has been proven even one time. If so I would not be debating those facts. 😏

Originally posted by sonhouse
Just because a theory may not be totally correct doesn't mean it is at least partially correct, the partially correct part being 1, the Earth is billions of years old and 2 Evolution is the study of how life CHANGED not how life GOT HERE. and 3 there is solid evidence of intermediary forms where one form changed to another over time as read by the fossil ev ...[text shortened]... h no help from a deity. That is clear by the fact your so-called god was given human attributes.

You must accept some of this stuff as true! Seriously, a spot that can
grasp light without cause just shows up and stays! Billions of years, hell
I'll give you trillions of years, that does not change what you are up against
nor does it help you acquire what is needed!

It isn't the time, as I have told you, it is getting it all together at the same
time in the same place! Unless that occurs all the time before or after will
not add to the equation, truthfully the more time there is the less likely
what you have to BELIEVE occurred would take place.

I GET you want to just talk about how life changes, but there is NOTHING
you have brought up about how life changes that cannot be brought up
due to design, and design seems much more likely given how diverse all
of life is.

The fossil evidence is just you connecting dots, this one belongs to that
so it is true, that does not mean it is true, it just fits your story, the current
story that has be evolving over time since Darwin.

I don't put forward facts in scripture unless those like you bring it up, like
your evolutionary evidence if is faith. If God acts upon your life you will not
need me to make that happen, but God Himself.