What would actually be in a "magical creation" textbook? Beyond it isn't evolution.

[DrDoomNGloom]

Angels aren't little gods. Angels were created for a purpose and people don't become angels when they die.

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Your story has supporting evidence in the form of scrolls, scripts and manuscripts??
You can support bits and pieces of the whole story by using proven scientific methods??
Your story has a fan base which is a % of the world populace willing to believe in the contextuality as it stands uncontested??

Any one can concoct a story, but it takes a GOD to create a religion ....................

 

[Conservative65]

Angels aren't little gods. Angels were created for a purpose and people don't become angels when they die.

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Angels aren't little gods. Angels were created for a purpose and people don't become angels when they die.

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

You are free to believe what you will. That's the whole idea.

 

[rdean]

So Republicans get their wish and schools suddenly decide it's only fair to teach magical creation. Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"? Anyone?

Of Pandas and People The Central Question of Biological Origins

An actual school biology textbook used to teach Intelligent Design, now outlawed by Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

There are 141 reviews of that book. Did you bother to read any of them?

And my question was: Besides "it isn't evolution", what is it exactly, they would "teach"?

So where is the science? Saying the eye is too complex to evolve is not science. In fact, for anyone who has read Behe's book, the centerpiece of it is "irreducible complexity" or the idea that some things are simply too complex so it must have been created. Can you see how unscientific that is? It isn't this so it must be that. And the example he uses again and again is the flagellum in a common bacteria. They insist that no scientist will say there are no other examples of it in science so it must have been magically created exactly how it is now. Do some research. How do scientists explain that?

So where is the science beyond "I don't believe it"?

You asked what it teaches. I provided you the actual textbook.

You're welcome.

Are you making assumptions of where I stand just because I actually answered your question? I think you are.

Interesting.

You said: You asked what it teaches. I provided you the actual textbook.

You did? or did you?

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology.

Astrology is scientific theory courtroom told - science-in-society - 19 October 2005 - New Scientist

In your mind, is "astrology" a "science"? Behe does. Do you believe a man who believes the stars are guiding your destiny is capable of writing science text?

You might as well try to pass the Kama Sutra off as the leading text on contraception.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

 

[Asclepias]

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Your story has supporting evidence in the form of scrolls, scripts and manuscripts??
You can support bits and pieces of the whole story by using proven scientific methods??
Your story has a fan base which is a % of the world populace willing to believe in the contextuality as it stands uncontested??

Any one can concoct a story, but it takes a GOD to create a religion ....................

Who said you need scrolls and scripts? i dont remember anyone saying there had to be anything like that to make it valid. What they do have is a custom that goes back long before christianity though. I was also unaware you needed more people to be sheep in order to make your religion valid. Amma is a god. Says so in the story just like the christian version.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

You see where he keeps saying should?? That is because the scientific facts go against what he wishes was fact ......................

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Your story has supporting evidence in the form of scrolls, scripts and manuscripts??
You can support bits and pieces of the whole story by using proven scientific methods??
Your story has a fan base which is a % of the world populace willing to believe in the contextuality as it stands uncontested??

Any one can concoct a story, but it takes a GOD to create a religion ....................

Who said you need scrolls and scripts? i dont remember anyone saying there had to be anything like that to make it valid. What they do have is a custom that goes back long before christianity though. I was also unaware you needed more people to be sheep in order to make your religion valid.

I think the point was how much does common sense play into the equation??

 

[rdean]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

 

[Asclepias]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

 

[Asclepias]

The angels weren't born.

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Your story has supporting evidence in the form of scrolls, scripts and manuscripts??
You can support bits and pieces of the whole story by using proven scientific methods??
Your story has a fan base which is a % of the world populace willing to believe in the contextuality as it stands uncontested??

Any one can concoct a story, but it takes a GOD to create a religion ....................

Who said you need scrolls and scripts? i dont remember anyone saying there had to be anything like that to make it valid. What they do have is a custom that goes back long before christianity though. I was also unaware you needed more people to be sheep in order to make your religion valid.

I think the point was how much does common sense play into the equation??

Who defines what common sense is? We are talking about invisible people.

 

[Conservative65]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

Except with you since you brain didn't develop beyond that of a first trimester unborn baby.

 

[Conservative65]

Question: "When did God create the angels?"

Answer: Trying to determine when God created the angels is somewhat tricky because anything God did “before the foundation of the world” puts the event outside of time itself. Time and space are characteristics of our world, not God’s. He is not limited by hours, days and years as we are. In fact, the Bible tells us that “with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2 Peter 3:8).

We do know that God created the angels before he created the physical universe. The book of Job describes the angels worshipping God as He was creating the world: “Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone - while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7).

If we consider the function of angels, we might conclude that God created the angels just prior to the creation of mankind because one of their duties is to be “ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation” (Hebrews 1:14). We also know they existed prior to the Garden of Eden, because Satan, who was formerly the angel Lucifer, was already present in the Garden in his fallen state. However, because another function of angels is to worship God around His throne (Revelation 5:11-14), they may have been in existence millions of years—as we reckon time—before God created the world, worshipping Him and serving Him.

So, although the Bible does not specifically say when God created the angels, it was sometime before the world was created. Whether this was a day before, or billions of years before—again, as we reckon time—we cannot be sure.

When did God create the angels

What makes that story more valid than this one since no one can prove it happened?

dogonmyth.html

"The creation of the world was the deed of the god Amma, the one god and image of the father who existed before all things. Following an unsuccessful initial attempt, from which he salvaged only the four elements (water, earth, fire, and air), Amma placed in the "egg of the world," or the original placenta, two pairs of androgynous twins in the form of fish . Their gestation inside the egg was interrupted by an act of rebellion: one of the male beings, Yurugu prematurely left the "mother" (the placenta), deserting both "her" and his female counterpart, thus prefiguring the birth of single beings even though Amma had envisaged twin births. The solitary being descended into space and primordial darkness, taking with him a piece of the placenta that became Earth. Aware of his solitude, he traveled through space, attempted to reascend to heaven to join his female twin again, and even sought her out in the bowels of Earth, an incestuous act that brought to a climax the disorder he had already introduced into the world by leaving the placenta. The piece of placenta rotted and thus death appeared on earth."

Your story has supporting evidence in the form of scrolls, scripts and manuscripts??
You can support bits and pieces of the whole story by using proven scientific methods??
Your story has a fan base which is a % of the world populace willing to believe in the contextuality as it stands uncontested??

Any one can concoct a story, but it takes a GOD to create a religion ....................

Who said you need scrolls and scripts? i dont remember anyone saying there had to be anything like that to make it valid. What they do have is a custom that goes back long before christianity though. I was also unaware you needed more people to be sheep in order to make your religion valid.

I think the point was how much does common sense play into the equation??

Who defines what common sense is? We are talking about invisible people.

Plenty that believe like you think they can.

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

Oh really, fetus's go through stages if missing ancestors that we have not discovered that are indicative of us coming from apes??
I'm sure you have links to this??

By the way, you do realize those that have ape like genetics have a different hole placement in the skull which than humans, bi pedal locomotion requires a skull with the spinal cord exiting at the bottom instead of the rear ...........

So is this spinal cord / skull placement changing as the baby grows or just what would you have us believe??

I call BULL SHIT, sounds like you need Shitting Bull to come get your back!!

 

[Asclepias]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

Oh really, fetus's go through stages if missing ancestors that we have not discovered that are indicative of us coming from apes??
I'm sure you have links to this??

By the way, you do realize those that have ape like genetics have a different hole placement in the skull which than humans, bi pedal locomotion requires a skull with the spinal cord exiting at the bottom instead of the rear ...........

So is this spinal cord / skull placement changing as the baby grows or just what would you have us believe??

I call BULL SHIT, sounds like you need Shitting Bull to come get your back!!

Dont get upset.

Embryos Show All Animals Share Ancient Genes Discovery News Discovery News

 

[Harry Dresden]

What about all the other supernaturals in inhabit the Judea-Christian world view? You know, immortal beings like all Angels in Heaven, and Satan and all the Demons in Hell.

Its the monotheistic version of polytheism truth be told. 1 main god with an assortment of little "gods".impacting life for humans.

Angels aren't little gods. Angels were created for a purpose and people don't become angels when they die.

Were the Angels alive when God created Adam and Eve?

im sure many were and some were born since.....they are all part of that super civilization i mentioned....

The angels weren't born.

if you say so......me i will go with born to other beings of their kind....

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

 

[Asclepias]

My question is, how does evolution rule out intelligent design. Is it possible that an intelligent creator used evolution as the mechanism?

there is no empirical observable evidence of an intelligent creator .
no gods bar code..

Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You said:
Check this out. As a person with a background in engineering I found this very interesting.

Fibonacci in Nature

You have your answer in your own link:

The leaves on this plant are staggered in a spiral pattern to permit optimum exposure to sunlight.

Hello, knock knock. The answer is right there. After hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and discarding less efficient mans of collecting sunlight, plants finally made it to the most efficient arrangement. Welcome to evolution.

That doesnt make sense though. Who discarded it? That would mean a conscious act. A lab scenario so to speak. If plants started out with a non efficient system how did they survive?

So by that simple question it is clear that you do not understand survival of the fittest..........

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of modern day evolution that we can observe, now creationism is a whole different matter !!

Survival of the fittest is a lab.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria is an example of evolution but what gave it the ability to evolve?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Prove evolution took place by providing me with an actual picture of my direct line grandfather from 20,000 generations ago evolution supporters say I evolved from.

What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence for Creation

Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.

If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.

While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.

If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.

Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.

Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!

Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?

If you have ever studied the development of the human fetus it goes through those stages.

Oh really, fetus's go through stages if missing ancestors that we have not discovered that are indicative of us coming from apes??
I'm sure you have links to this??

By the way, you do realize those that have ape like genetics have a different hole placement in the skull which than humans, bi pedal locomotion requires a skull with the spinal cord exiting at the bottom instead of the rear ...........

So is this spinal cord / skull placement changing as the baby grows or just what would you have us believe??

I call BULL SHIT, sounds like you need Shitting Bull to come get your back!!

Dont get upset.

Embryos Show All Animals Share Ancient Genes Discovery News Discovery News

No one is upset, I am rolling on the floor laughing at your ignorant ass "shows characteristics, etc does not imply we go through those stages...
Comprehension is a major problem for you or the intellectual material is way above your pay grade, which is it??

THE GIST
Embryos for humans and other animals often look alike at certain developmental stages because they share ancient genes.

These ancient genes are expressed during a middle "phylotypic period" of embryonic development for all species.

Developing human, fish and other embryos therefore at times share features, such as tails and gill-like structures.

Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development, according to two separate papers published in this week's Nature.

The findings help to explain why our embryos have a tail when they are a few weeks old and why human embryos retain other characteristics, such as fur-like hair and fish embryo similarities, seen in the developmental stages of other species.

"On average, the similarities will be even stronger for more closely related species," Diethard Tautz told Discovery News.

"However, it is indeed true that even fish and human embryos go through a phase that looks very comparable, while they are rather different before and after this," added Tautz, who co-authored one of the papers and serves as managing director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology.

He and colleague Tomislav Domazet-Loso tackled the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" puzzle. This expression means that a more advanced organism, like humans, will resemble less advanced species during it's development stages.