Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[steko]

The flood was gentle enough not to sink the ark, so why was it so rough it killed the fish?

So, you believe that the ark's survival was totally dependent on cause and effect happenstance events? Did not GOD Himself invite Noah and his family into the ark and then shut them in?

The flood was catastrophic and would surely have destroyed the ark, without GOD's providence.

 

[glorydaz]

So, you believe that the ark's survival was totally dependent on cause and effect happenstance events? Did not GOD Himself invite Noah and his family into the ark and then shut them in?

The flood was catastrophic and would surely have destroyed the ark, without GOD's providence.

Like the parting of the Red Sea. God's providence.

 

[iouae]

So, you believe that the ark's survival was totally dependent on cause and effect happenstance events? Did not GOD Himself invite Noah and his family into the ark and then shut them in?

The flood was catastrophic and would surely have destroyed the ark, without GOD's providence.

I like to save the "miracle" card for last. Let's look for a natural explanation first.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You observe the immaterial often, you just don't realize it. Many things that we know are immaterial things.


Mr. HighAndMighty, glad that you can be here to direct traffic.

Sure, you can't see wind but it's observable through science just like radiation waves etc. Science itself is not concerned with the supernatural, either for or against. It will never prove or disprove the existence of God to put it in utmost simplicity as that's not part of the remit. If you want to rail against evolution because it contradicts the constraints of your fundamentalist belief system then go ahead. The evidence won't care and to flip it around it equally won't care about any atheist perspective based on such either.

 

[steko]

I like to save the "miracle" card for last. Let's look for a natural explanation first.

The only natural explanation that I see is the very, very slim, likely impossible, roll of the dice. If the narrative is true, and I believe it is, GOD would not have left it to that.

 

[iouae]

The only natural explanation that I see is the very, very slim, likely impossible, roll of the dice. If the narrative is true, and I believe it is, GOD would not have left it to that.

Steko, the flood occurred over 40 days. This is not extreme. An ark could, IMHO easily survive rising water and rain.

6days wrote "Well.... no. Fish don't drown and become fossilized. However. they were rapidly buried in sediment and preserved from predators when the fountains of the deep erupted."

The fountains of the deep erupting is like having a water pump or air bubbler in an aquarium. The fish would have loved it.

 

[6days]

I really really want some of the weed you must grow and smoke.

Haha Loved that. Merry Christmas Jonah.

 

[gcthomas]

So the thoughts in your head are just some random neurons firing? That explains a lot.

No. Yours seem random, mine are organised. :up:

 

[Jonahdog]

Sure, you can't see wind but it's observable through science just like radiation waves etc. Science itself is not concerned with the supernatural, either for or against. It will never prove or disprove the existence of God to put it in utmost simplicity as that's not part of the remit. If you want to rail against evolution because it contradicts the constraints of your fundamentalist belief system then go ahead. The evidence won't care and to flip it around it equally won't care about any atheist perspective based on such either.

Wind is not immaterial

 

[6days]

Steko, the flood occurred over 40 days. This is not extreme.

You can't be referring to the Genesis flood in Scripture. That flood was extreme covering the highest mountains, destroying the earth 'that was', and eliminating all humanity, other than those in the ark. That flood covered the earth for many months. The reverberations of the Genesis flood likely lasted a couple hundred years. (seismic activity, tsunamis, inland seas / lakes draining)

The fountains of the deep erupting is like having a water pump or air bubbler in an aquarium. The fish would have loved it.

God's Word, and the fossil record show you are wrong.

 

[musterion]

You claimed "Goddidit!!!" earlier and seemed eager to submit evidence. Have you changed your mind?

Bald assertion. Your argument(s) from personal incredulity STILL isn't (aren't) persuasive.

What isn't persuasive is listening to a fool who believes dirt can think.

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is NO reason to believe that the earth has layers of rocks laid down successively on top of each other.

This would be true if layers of rock weren't found EVERYWHERE on Earth and extending for miles underground.

The Christian "dead man came back to life" myth is no more special and no more true than all the other dying and rising deity myths in other cultures you reject, I simply reject one more myth than you.

It's not a myth.

Yes, it is. The Christian "dead man came back to life" myth is no more special and no more true than all the other dying and rising deity myths in other cultures you reject, I simply reject "the truth" of one more myth than you.

It is a historically proven fact.

Well, this is an assertion you must substantiate (i.e. I have no responsibility to show it isn’t true). Would you like to try?

A type of science that your don't seem to have a grasp of.

Sure I do. You don’t seem to have a grasp of its limitations.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FIFTH time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea or should I expect more quotes from The musterion Playbook?

Since you think that the material world is all that there is, it's no wonder that you want to try make that the rule of the game.

I’d like to think I am wise enough to understand almost anything is possible. However, I have a difficult time with “believing in” things that are self-contradictory such as square circles and the existence of the nonexistent.

I have asked you questions and gave you EVERY opportunity to clarify your immaterial "world view". I've asked repeatedly what method I could use to investigate and study the immaterial. In return all you have done is evade, misrepresent, and insult.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a SIXTH time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea or should I expect more quotes from The musterion Playbook?

 

[Right Divider]

The flood was gentle enough not to sink the ark, so why was it so rough it killed the fish?

The flood was violent enough to make things like the Grand Canyon and the ark was quite sea-worthy.

Why do you think that there are any fish fossils in the first place? What natural process produces fish fossils?

 

[Right Divider]

Sure, you can't see wind but it's observable through science just like radiation waves etc. Science itself is not concerned with the supernatural, either for or against. It will never prove or disprove the existence of God to put it in utmost simplicity as that's not part of the remit. If you want to rail against evolution because it contradicts the constraints of your fundamentalist belief system then go ahead. The evidence won't care and to flip it around it equally won't care about any atheist perspective based on such either.

I don't argue against variation, which is what we DO observe. I argue against the ridiculous extrapolation that is commonly used in the so-called "theory of evolution".

Also, visibility to the human eye is not what we were talking about.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Yours seem random, mine are organised. :up:

Aren't you one that thinks that the universe is just a random collection of atoms bouncing around?

 

[Right Divider]

This would be true if layers of rock weren't found EVERYWHERE on Earth and extending for miles underground.

Just like you would find after a massive world-wide flood. Why do you think that layers of rock just keep piling up on top of each other year after year?

 

[Right Divider]

I like to save the "miracle" card for last. Let's look for a natural explanation first.

:dizzy:

 

[gcthomas]

Aren't you one that thinks that the universe is just a random collection of atoms bouncing around?

No. Are you. :idunno:

 

[gcthomas]

Just like you would find after a massive world-wide flood. Why do you think that layers of rock just keep piling up on top of each other year after year?

Yup, the sort of flood that deposits desert and forest and shallow sea beach and river delta layers one after the other and repeated. That sort.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Are you. :idunno:

Please remind me of your version of the creation of the universe, so that I don't misunderstand.