Creation and Evolution Compatible...Questions

[Axe Elf]

This is mostly just evidence that species change and not that the "theory" of evolution supports the causations. It is interpretation of observation and does not support all known facts. That there are "missing links" ignores the fact that there are more missing than are represented. We have several of representatives of a few stages of species change but nothing in between.

Now, see, if instead of merely quoting the resource I gave you, you had actually clicked on it and then scrolled down to where it lists "CC200. Transitional fossils are lacking," you could have answered your own objection! Doesn't that sound easy? I'll copy and paste it here for your convenience:

Claim CC200:
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.

Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
   
   
2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.
   
   The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:
   1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.
      
      
   2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).
      
      
   3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).
      
      
   4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).
      
      
   5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.
      
      
   6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).
      
      
   7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).
      
      
   8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).
      
      
   9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).
      
      
   10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).
       
       
   11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:
   1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).
      
      
   2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.
      
      
   3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).
      
      
   4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).
      
      
   5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.
      
      
   6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.
      
      
   7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).
      
      
   8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).
      
      
   9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).
   
   The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:
   1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod speciesNeocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).
      
      
   2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.
      
      
   3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).

 

[Deeje]

Unless it wasn't a rib.

I understand that the Tanach uses the word "side" instead of "rib"....can you tell me what the Jewish interpretation of this word means?
If not the rib...then what was taken to fashion the woman? It says God "closed the flesh", so what did God take?

 

[Mock Turtle]

No they don't. Squirrels have no idea why they store food away for the winter. Bears don't plan to hibernate. Birds don't plan how to build their nests. It's all pre-programmed instinct. Do you know of a program that doesn't have a programmer? What a multitude of fortunate accidents you believe in.....

You have access to their minds? You really are just spouting religious-inspired nonsense.

Family groups likewise are programmed to do what they do collectively. They are not unintelligent, but not anywhere close to being able to plan what humans do. There is no real foreseeable future in their actions, just a program from their Creator that makes them enjoy their lives and make them fascinating to us as their caretakers. My favorite animals in the zoo are the various species of monkeys.....they resemble humans in some ways but are light years away in others. I just love to sit and watch them. I love to observe creation generally as a lot of it happens in my backyard.

More bonkers stuff, and derived from an inability to just be honest and look at the evidence!

I have brushed up on these matters which is why I hold the beliefs that I do.

Via some religious information?

The ability not to forget a pleasant interaction with a human or a particularly traumatic event, is not to be confused with our ability to remember whole portions of our past not connected to anything dramatic in particular...an outing or a trip, or an event with family....some childhood memory that is connected to a certain odor or sound. I doubt that animals have the ability to remember mundane things. Their programming has mostly to do with survival. Certain species were actually designed to be companions of humans....others were not.

Who is arguing that our lives are not immeasurably richer than those of most animal species - not me? Hardly means that they do not share much in common with us rather than just being instinct-driven automatons. Your last sentence is just so humorous. I hope you don't keep dangerous dogs as pets - they might just eat your face off one day - as they did to an unfortunate French woman. Her pet, not some other strange dog. And it's just so demeaning to many animal species to see them this way, even if so many do seem to appreciate and love our company. They are individuals in their own right - those with a modicum of higher consciousness, that is.

What do you actually see in this video?

 

[ArtieE]

Tell me what "faith" is

Belief in something without sufficient evidence or contrary to the evidence.

The Bible tells us why our life experience does not gel with our expectations in life. Why we collectively display sadness or disappointment when those expectations are not met.
Science tells us that we are just animals who form these expectations from our own evolutionary experiences, but that does not explain why humans collectively desire happiness, peace, security and loving family relationships as a norm.

We evolved instincts to survive and procreate so obviously we desire those things that are beneficial for that.

And why laughter is universal, a sense of humor, pretending (acting), poetry, enjoying fiction, creating music in a variety of genres, and any number of other traits that humans have exclusively.

We evolved a big brain. The rest of this just came naturally as a result of evolving this big brain.

It explains why something like death, (especially sudden or unexpected death which is accepted naturally by the vast majority of creatures on this planet,) is never accepted in the human species.

Heh... of course we don't accept death. We evolved a survival instinct.

Grief is felt deeply (sometimes for decades) despite it being part of our existence from the beginning. What does science do to explain this?

Of course we grieve. Even many animals grieve. Because we have a survival instinct and non-survival is therefore seen as detrimental.

Surely by now we should have 'evolved' the same kind of acceptance displayed in the majority of other creatures on this planet?

Are you joking? All creatures have a survival instinct and try to avoid dying if they can.

It tells us about free will and why it was given along with a superior level of intelligence, only to humans. In the animal kingdom, wisdom is pre-programmed in creatures to make their lives and interactions successful. They have no ability to conceptualise past, present and future, so their actions, (anything that sustains their species) are automatic......involving no ability to plan beyond the present.
How does science explain this?

We evolved a bigger brain.

My holy book explains why humans do not behave in a way that we might expect, given our 'natural' moral qualities. We are sometimes appalled that humans are capable of behaving in ways that are described as "inhuman" (not what we expect from humans...in fact not even what we would expect from animals who usually kill with no malice, but simply for a desire to eat.)

Because humans are different and not clones.

Science says we are just animals.....but are we? We might physically resemble some of them in some ways, but intellectually, we are poles apart.

We evolved bigger brains.

The Bible tells us that the situation we find ourselves in is temporary, with a final solution that will achieve the Creator's first purpose without removing what caused our dilemma....the abuse of free will. We are the only creatures on the planet with truly free will and a moral sense (along with the faculty of conscience) to modify our behavior in a conceptualized manner. We alone can see where our actions may lead in the future and can avoid those actions according to that imagined outcome.
How does science explain that some humans can see the imagined outcome of their actions but carry them out anyway?

Because all humans are different and not clones.

Our conduct on this planet demonstrates that humans are the greatest threat to all species that live here. As custodians, man has committed crimes against all of them for the sake of furthering his own greed.....and the misuse of science is in the forefront of that situation....man will ultimately lead to the demise of all life unless his behaviours are brought to a halt. He shows no real evidence of an intention to cease his behaviors......I believe that God will have to do that. In fact, he guarantees it.

If our conduct leads to the extinction of all life including ourselves that is just how evolution and natural selection works.

The Bible has no unanswered questions...

The Bible has infinitely many unanswered questions. Science is trying to answer them.

evolutionary science provides answers that never touched that part of me that demanded reasons that gelled with my own sense of logic and my own natural spirituality.

But it is your problem if there's something wrong with your sense of logic and your "own natural spirituality" not the problem of evolutionary science...

 

[ArtieE]

I used to believe in evolution until I actually examined the "evidence" for myself.

What is the "evidence" for the existence of your god? Is it better than the evidence for evolution?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand that the Tanach uses the word "side" instead of "rib"....can you tell me what the Jewish interpretation of this word means?
If not the rib...then what was taken to fashion the woman? It says God "closed the flesh", so what did God take?

A couple of points:

1. The common Jewish interpretation is 'rib'.
2. I have a mild preference for the hypothesis raised by Gilbert and Zevit.

 

[cladking]

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.

I'm not disputing change in species. I am disputing that it is gradual and caused by "survival of the fittest". It is my contention that most change in species is sudden and with no intervening steps and is caused by behavior being eradicated rather than ability, strength, speed, adaptability, or intelligence conferring survival. Species, especially humans, are not evolving toward some goal or toward some better ability to survive but are changing more as in a random walk. Humans are actually devolving in all probability because social structures favor "bad" behaviors and "bad" genes. But there won't be a significantly different species descended from us until and unless there comes a population bottleneck. At that time there could be a massive change and the offspring wouldn't even look much like us. Their behavior would more closely approximate the behavior of the survivors in all probability and their characteristics would be an expression of the genes that the survivors shared.

This is how all large observed change in species occurs. Nothing in real science contradicts it to my knowledge. One can interpret many results and data in many ways when they aren't based in a well formed experiment. Modern science has no meaning outside its metaphysics and much "evolutionary science" exists outside metaphysics. Observation, most anecdotal evidence, ancient science, and logic support behavior and mutation being fundamental to change in species. It is this "belief" that behavior is fundamental that became the basis of religion.

This contention is real science, real theory, according to ancient science in my opinion.

 

[Audie]

She's a piece of work, isn't she? She's kind of out of place on a debating site, when all she's good for is outlandish nonsense unsupportable by either evidence or logic. You would think maybe she would have wanted to learn a little something about debate before she gave it a shot, but then again, I doubt if it would have helped. And I don't think I can drag her any further either.

Oh well, on to those who are still salvageable...

A person who says they know a lot about evolution
or any other aspect of science, and then asks for "proof" is simply a phony.

Sincere ignorance is honest, at least.

I will be impressed when someone can find a way to disprove the ToE.

IF it were wrong, then, the disproof should be everywhere. Where is it ?

 

[Ponder This]

Squirrels have no idea why they store food away for the winter. Bears don't plan to hibernate. Birds don't plan how to build their nests. It's all pre-programmed instinct.

I realize that people have spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove or disprove science using... the Bible. I mean no offense when I suggest that maybe the Bible isn't about science...

 

[Deeje]

Just a little reminder to the newbies...it is against forum rules to talk about another poster in the third person. If you have a complaint, take it to the person concerned...OK? You don't have to agree. Debating is about getting both sides of the subject matter and coming to conclusions. Perhaps we can just concentrate on the subject rather than the poster?

This is a great little compendium of information that refutes just about anything that a Creationist could throw at you.

Let's see......for what it's worth, here is my response (in red) to this "list" of evidence for evolution's validity.

An Index to Creationist Claims

In response to the objection, "Evolution has not been proved," the site offers this response:

1. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms. Each new piece of evidence tests the rest. OK, so nothing "absolute", just what is deemed to be "a high degree of certainty". Lets see what that "high degree of certainty" is based on....
   
2. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. As would be the case if there was one single Creator of all things, using the same materials and the same construction techniques.
   
3. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. The tree of life scenario has been under fire in recent times. Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life
   
4. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Do we? From the site mentioned above..."The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."
   
5. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. LOL...no I'm sorry, but they don't. There are no transitional fossils....all they have are a few different looking species millions of years apart, with nothing linking them but the imagination of scientists. Fossils have no voice but the one given them by scientists.
6. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Nonsense. The whole idea of common decent is made up. There is no evidence that one taxonomic family of creatures can cross over into another family of creatures, no matter how much time you throw at them. Adaptation can occur within a single family and this is what has been observed. What Darwin observed was probably adaptation because the finches were clearly still finches and the iguanas were still iguanas and the tortoises were still tortoises. None of them were becoming something else. They were just new varieties of the same creature.
7. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight. This could be just adaptation, not macroevolution....or they may have been created that way. As is the case with all flightless birds, wings do not necessarily mean that the creature was designed for flight.....imagine an ostrich trying to get off the ground? Is a penguin a bird? It appears to be designed for life in the water.
8. Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories. Or it is interpreted that way to support a pet theory?
9. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth. Which proves what? The embryos of many creatures resemble one another in early stages of development. This is assumption....one of many "might have" or "could have" scenarios invented by scientists.

 

[Deeje]

Continued....numbers are messed up in the splitting but follow on...

10 The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included. The distribution of species could also be consistent with a Creator locating species in habitats that he produced for them. Or in the case where species have been isolated away from their mainland cousins, adaptive changes become evident like they were on the Galapagos. Again we see variety produced within a taxonomic family. That is not macroevolution.

1. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. Similar structure is also seen when houses or other buildings are constructed. The basic structural framework is so sound that other structures are built using that fundamental principle. This is not proof for evolution, but equally sound when applied to ID.
2. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. Again we simply see the same genetic material used for the creation of all living things. Just like the same materials are used in vastly different building projects. It doesn't mean that all buildings must be related because of having similar materials. Just because we share the same genetic material doesn't mean that we are related to fruit flies or nematodes.....now that is just silly.
3. When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too. Two organisms can also be designed for different functions. As already mentioned, wings are not always used for flight. Gliders do not need wings but have a membrane that is stretched out to facilitate flight from one position to another in the treetops. There is even a flying snake.
4. The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking. Good grief! We have a gag reflex for that. If there was no gag reflex, then yes, you would have a design flaw rather than multiple functionality and optimum use of space.
5. Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Junk DNA? Hidden Treasures in Junk DNA
6. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry. And yet they are all viruses. Same family of organisms, aren't they?
7. Speciation has been observed. Speciation is nothing more than producing another variety of a single organism. Speciation does not take an organism outside of its taxonomic family. Wiki's article on "speciation" shows that the flies remained flies, the fish remained fish and bacteria remain bacteria. Adaptation capable of producing new varieties of any species is programmed into every organism.
8. The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. "Consistent with" is another way of saying "similar to what was expected" if one believes macro-evolution took place. There is no way to trace common decent back to a "last universal ancestor". If you read Wiki's article on "Evidence of Common Decent" you will see suggestion masquerading as evidence, as follows.....

Quote...."Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed in geologic time. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms. The comparative study of the anatomy of groups of animals shows structural features that are fundamentally similar (homologous), demonstrating phylogenetic and ancestral relationships with other organisms, most especially when compared with fossils of ancient extinct organisms. Vestigial structures and comparisons in embryonic development are largely a contributing factor in anatomical resemblance in concordance with common descent. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms' physiology and biochemistry. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor."

If you really read what it says you will see phrases like "structural features that are fundamentally similar"...."similar"? Or "anatomical resemblance"....."resemblance"?...that is not proof of anything. It is making suggestions not presenting facts. The whole theory is pushed as if there was actual proof of its validity, when it presents nothing of the sort. The language downplays the guesswork.

 

[Deeje]

A couple of points:

1. The common Jewish interpretation is 'rib'.
2. I have a mild preference for the hypothesis raised by Gilbert and Zevit.

Certainly a very creative suggestion. But the Greek Septuagint may be closer to what was originally believed. His suggestion doesn't really agree with "side", does it?

 

[ArtieE]

Let's see......for what it's worth, here is my response (in red) to this "list" of evidence for evolution's validity.

If you claim evolution is wrong and everything was created it's up to you then to come up with a plan to find out who created what when. How do you suggest science should proceed to find this out? What should be their strategy? Surely you don't suggest scientists should find some ancient holy book of some kind and believe it and start to worship the god(s) in it or whatever it is you do?

 

[Axe Elf]

Let's see......for what it's worth

I would assess its value as approximately equal to a used Kleenex and a bent paper clip.

Just a little reminder to the newbies...it is against forum rules to talk about another poster in the third person. If you have a complaint, take it to the person concerned...OK?

I see that your comprehension of the Forum rules is of approximately the same value as your Biblical exegesis.

"Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums."

As you can see, the prohibition is against personal attacks and name-calling in the third person. Merely mentioning someone in the third person to comment on their ideas or their methods is not prohibited.

 

[Audie]

If you claim evolution is wrong and everything was created it's up to you then to come up with a plan to find out who created what when. How do you suggest science should proceed to find this out? What should be their strategy? Surely you don't suggest scientists should find some ancient holy book of some kind and believe it and start to worship the god(s) in it or whatever it is you do?

More to the point would be to present some sort of facts that disprove ToE.

 

[Deeje]

What is the "evidence" for the existence of your god? Is it better than the evidence for evolution?

The evidence for my God is all around us. I personally don't need more. I see purpose in all facets of creation and symbiosis in the systems that all interplay in the ecology. You see it all as a gigantic fluke.....no, you actually see it as an incredible series of billions of fortunate accidents. You can believe that if you like but logic dictates to me that purpose requires intelligence and intelligence requires that there is a mind in possession of that intelligence. Who says God can't exist?

Science cannot disprove the existence an all-powerful Creator so its really about what makes more logical sense to the individual.

YEC proponents should be ignored and so should those who push the unprovable theory of macroevolution. I believe that there is somewhere in the middle of those two where the truth is to be found. You are free to believe whatever you like.

 

[gnostic]

I understand that the Tanach uses the word "side" instead of "rib"....can you tell me what the Jewish interpretation of this word means?
If not the rib...then what was taken to fashion the woman? It says God "closed the flesh", so what did God take?

The NJPS Tanakh (1985) says “rib”, in 2:21-22.

 

[Deeje]

Just to be clear about the forum rules.....

Here is what you said.....

She's a piece of work, isn't she? She's kind of out of place on a debating site, when all she's good for is outlandish nonsense unsupportable by either evidence or logic. You would think maybe she would have wanted to learn a little something about debate before she gave it a shot, but then again, I doubt if it would have helped. And I don't think I can drag her any further either.

Oh well, on to those who are still salvageable...

Then you quote the rule......"Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums."

You don't consider your post personally insulting when discussing myself with another poster? You are not discussing my post, you are discussing me. Her response was....

A person who says they know a lot about evolution or any other aspect of science, and then asks for "proof" is simply a phony

When egos are challenged it's nice to have a friend who pats you on the back.....but it's totally out of place in a debating forum where opposing views are up for evaluation. Responding out of ego to cover up a failure to provide a valid response is not really debating, is it? I've heard all the excuses so its obvious that when people make it personal, they have run out of excuses. I have seen it too many times.

Copy and paste is a lazy mans debating method. Are you not used to people disagreeing with you or challenging your beliefs? I will challenge what I believe maligns the integrity of the Creator, especially when one belief system is used to prove another belief system is wrong. It then boils down to personal preference IMO.

You can call yourself a "zen xian" (whatever that means).....does it mean that you have formulated your own personal brand of religion?.....are there others who hold your beliefs, I am wondering what is the meaning of your religious identification? Care to explain?

 

[Deeje]

The NJPS Tanakh (1985) says “rib”, in 2:21-22.

From the CJB...."And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon man, and he slept, and He took one of his sides, and He closed the flesh in its place."

Berei**** - Genesis - Chapter 2 (Parshah Berei****)
Look it up in Strongs. It has a wider range of meaning.

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)

EDIT: Oh dear, the site's word police are at it again.

 

[Axe Elf]

Just to be clear about the forum rules.....

Here is what you said.....

"She's a piece of work, isn't she? She's kind of out of place on a debating site, when all she's good for is outlandish nonsense unsupportable by either evidence or logic. You would think maybe she would have wanted to learn a little something about debate before she gave it a shot, but then again, I doubt if it would have helped. And I don't think I can drag her any further either.

Oh well, on to those who are still salvageable..."

Then you quote the rule......"Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums."

You don't consider your post personally insulting when discussing myself with another poster? You are not discussing my post, you are discussing me.

I was discussing your ideas ("outlandish nonsense unsupportable by either evidence or logic") and your methods ("She's kind of out of place on a debating site"; "You would think maybe she would have wanted to learn a little something about debate before she gave it a shot") and the futility of engaging with you further regarding your ideas and your methods ("but then again, I doubt if it would have helped. And I don't think I can drag her any further either. Oh well, on to those who are still salvageable").

The only thing you could POSSIBLY point to as a "personal attack" would be "She's a piece of work, isn't she?" which is at least about you, personally--but in a vacuum, being a piece of work could be a compliment, like fine art. I will at least be man enough to apologize for saying you were a piece of work, if it offended you.

But the outlandish nonsense and inability to debate by commonly accepted practices remain--those are objective statements of fact.

Her response was....

"A person who says they know a lot about evolution or any other aspect of science, and then asks for "proof" is simply a phony"

You MIGHT have a case for an insult with her use of the word "phony," but it would be hard to prove it was a PERSONAL insult when she only said it about "a person"; not YOU, specifically.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I DID address you directly regarding your irrational arguments and logical fallacies in my "Proponent of Rational Faith" thread, and you just said I must have run out of answers and so I was running away. Fat lotta good THAT did.